Fire In the Equations
"Different interpretations and speculations are possible, but we must admit, whichever interpretation is ours, that we cannot prove that the other interpretation is wrong."
“Nevertheless, we yearn to know the truth about everything and behind everything, to see further and further with our telescopes, to probe closer and closer with our microscopes, to know all the answers. “
Chapter 1
They Buried Him In Westminster Abbey
Darwins burial as the reconciliation between faith and science. Could this have been?
Darwins burial as the reconciliation between faith and science. Could this have been?
Chapter 2
Seeing Things
In order to find the truth, one must have a little bit of blind faith, trusting ideas that may never be proved.
When we think/read/hear of an object we all have a mental image that accompanies it. (Every one has a different mental image, even for the same object.)
Everybody sees things differently. We can either see them as a regular person, as a scientist, as a kid and give them a different concept of that same thing.
5 articles of faith:
There is always cause and effect. This means that there are chains of cause and effect (we never expect them to end). We believe this is how the future and the beginning of time has always been (it all started and keeps going with a cause).
“Our act of observation creates a real situation where otherwise there would be only ghostly uncertainty.”
“We can’t separate this reality from the person doing the observing or from his or her choice of how to do the measuring.”
With these two phrases does Kitty mean that there is no objective reality?
“Most scientists feel there must be something ‘real’ or else what they study about the physical worlds would not fit together in such amazing and unexpected ways.”
So, there has to be an objective truth, if not, why wyld the scientists even bother in trying to uncover stuff? They would just give their opinion about something and that would be enough.
Theory of everything: simple set of rules that would underlie all the enormous complexity and trivial detail of the universe?
Is everything predetermined? Are the chances?
“On the other hand, God is supposed to have foreknowledge. On the other, we are told we have free will and will be held accountable for our actions. “ How can both be true?
In order to find the truth, one must have a little bit of blind faith, trusting ideas that may never be proved.
When we think/read/hear of an object we all have a mental image that accompanies it. (Every one has a different mental image, even for the same object.)
Everybody sees things differently. We can either see them as a regular person, as a scientist, as a kid and give them a different concept of that same thing.
5 articles of faith:
- The universe is rational (has pattern, symmetry).
- The universe is accessible to us.
- The universe has contingency to it.
- There is such a thing as objective reality (there is a truth behind everything).
- There is unity to the universe (there is one something fundamental to everything). KIND OF LIKE A LAW OF NATURE (SEE A PHILOSOPHER LOOKS AT SCIENCE)
There is always cause and effect. This means that there are chains of cause and effect (we never expect them to end). We believe this is how the future and the beginning of time has always been (it all started and keeps going with a cause).
“Our act of observation creates a real situation where otherwise there would be only ghostly uncertainty.”
“We can’t separate this reality from the person doing the observing or from his or her choice of how to do the measuring.”
With these two phrases does Kitty mean that there is no objective reality?
“Most scientists feel there must be something ‘real’ or else what they study about the physical worlds would not fit together in such amazing and unexpected ways.”
So, there has to be an objective truth, if not, why wyld the scientists even bother in trying to uncover stuff? They would just give their opinion about something and that would be enough.
Theory of everything: simple set of rules that would underlie all the enormous complexity and trivial detail of the universe?
Is everything predetermined? Are the chances?
“On the other hand, God is supposed to have foreknowledge. On the other, we are told we have free will and will be held accountable for our actions. “ How can both be true?
Chapter 3
Almost Objective
We cannot believe blindly in everything that science tells us. But we can believe that through science we might eventually reach the truth.
Scientific method’s two basic principles:
How can we experience reality without actually putting our own prejudices, etcetera? How do we know it is reality?
“It becomes of paramount importance to ask which point of view it is we’re operating from, how we’ve arrived at this point of view rather than some others, and how much it limits us.”
Atoms - particles – electrons – protons – neutrons – quarks – fermions
Four forces that underlie all of nature:
Symmetrical: make a number of atoms equally likely.
Electroweak theory: trying to unite the strong nuclear force and the weak nuclear force.
“… there is always some way of manipulating the theory or the auxiliary assumptions to create an agreement between theory and experiments.”
Sometimes we see things a certain way and we have expectations of what we want to see or find. Sometimes there is another side to it, but in order to see the other side, we must forget what we are looking for in the first place and be more open. There are other things that we don’t imagine are there.
There are different ways of representing reality.
The beauty of something helps us decide whether something is good or not, acceptable or unacceptable. Finding beauty = finding truth.
Beauty in physics: simplicity, elegance, mathematical consistency and creativity.
Could it be that people thought of Ptolemy’s solar system and beautiful? Is this why everyone believed it and had a hard time moving on?
“In the yearning to find the simple, beautiful idea, the search for knowledge in physics becomes intermingled with the search for God.”
If we find something unattractive, our faith in math and logic won’t let us believe it is true.
Was God constrained by mathematical and logical consistency?
Is mathematical consistency stronger than God? Is it God?
Math is a universal language (GEB)
Gödel’s incompleteness theorem:
“Gödel showed that in any mathematical system complex enough to include the addition and multiplication of whole numbers, there are propositions which can be stated – that we can even see are true – but which cannot be proved or disproved mathematically within the system.”
In other words, math requires a leap of faith.
“The mind-set of our culture and our historical setting also play a strong role in determining what theoretical proposals are taken seriously and what emerges as scientific knowledge.”
This is because people outside the scientific community create pressure. The people demand and choose what theories are to be tested.
Scientific decision = weather something is true or not.
People want scientists to find something that benefits them. But when there is a topic that may endanger our values and principles we reject helping the theory, because of fear of being wrong. Even if scientists are able to prove something like this, it doesn’t mean that the people will accept it.
“Do religious views affect what emerges as scientific knowledge?”
Everyone believes that scientists are all atheists. This is false. What happens is that most scientists never involve God in their theories.
“It is almost impossible for a person to describe an object which can’t be linked in any way with anything he or she has experiences before.”
Theory of everything: would allow us to know and predict everything in the universe.
We cannot believe blindly in everything that science tells us. But we can believe that through science we might eventually reach the truth.
Scientific method’s two basic principles:
- All of our theories must be tested against what they really are.
- The testing must be done in public and one should be able to repeat it.
How can we experience reality without actually putting our own prejudices, etcetera? How do we know it is reality?
“It becomes of paramount importance to ask which point of view it is we’re operating from, how we’ve arrived at this point of view rather than some others, and how much it limits us.”
Atoms - particles – electrons – protons – neutrons – quarks – fermions
Four forces that underlie all of nature:
- Gravity
- Electromagnetic force
- Strong nuclear force (Cause of the atoms nuclei to hold together)
- Weak nuclear force (cause of radioactivity)
Symmetrical: make a number of atoms equally likely.
Electroweak theory: trying to unite the strong nuclear force and the weak nuclear force.
“… there is always some way of manipulating the theory or the auxiliary assumptions to create an agreement between theory and experiments.”
Sometimes we see things a certain way and we have expectations of what we want to see or find. Sometimes there is another side to it, but in order to see the other side, we must forget what we are looking for in the first place and be more open. There are other things that we don’t imagine are there.
There are different ways of representing reality.
The beauty of something helps us decide whether something is good or not, acceptable or unacceptable. Finding beauty = finding truth.
Beauty in physics: simplicity, elegance, mathematical consistency and creativity.
Could it be that people thought of Ptolemy’s solar system and beautiful? Is this why everyone believed it and had a hard time moving on?
“In the yearning to find the simple, beautiful idea, the search for knowledge in physics becomes intermingled with the search for God.”
If we find something unattractive, our faith in math and logic won’t let us believe it is true.
Was God constrained by mathematical and logical consistency?
Is mathematical consistency stronger than God? Is it God?
Math is a universal language (GEB)
Gödel’s incompleteness theorem:
“Gödel showed that in any mathematical system complex enough to include the addition and multiplication of whole numbers, there are propositions which can be stated – that we can even see are true – but which cannot be proved or disproved mathematically within the system.”
In other words, math requires a leap of faith.
“The mind-set of our culture and our historical setting also play a strong role in determining what theoretical proposals are taken seriously and what emerges as scientific knowledge.”
This is because people outside the scientific community create pressure. The people demand and choose what theories are to be tested.
Scientific decision = weather something is true or not.
People want scientists to find something that benefits them. But when there is a topic that may endanger our values and principles we reject helping the theory, because of fear of being wrong. Even if scientists are able to prove something like this, it doesn’t mean that the people will accept it.
“Do religious views affect what emerges as scientific knowledge?”
Everyone believes that scientists are all atheists. This is false. What happens is that most scientists never involve God in their theories.
“It is almost impossible for a person to describe an object which can’t be linked in any way with anything he or she has experiences before.”
Theory of everything: would allow us to know and predict everything in the universe.
Chapter 4
Romancing the Creation
Trying to solve Einstein’s relativity equations, Abbé Georges Henri was the fist to come up with something like the Big Bang. “There had been a time when everything that makes up the universe was compressed into a space only about thirty times the size of our sun.”
Hubble´s work:
“In any direction in space we look, no matter where in the universe we are, we look towards the past.”
We actually see everything in the past, because of the way the light travels. In the world it travels very fast, while in the universe the delay of image is worth considering. We might be seeing things that are millions of years old.
Big Bang theory: all in the universe converges to a single point. The universe suddenly bursts into existence and expanded, around some 13.7 to 14 million years ago.
Steady-State theory: new matter is continuously created as the universe expands.
But the Steady-state theory was discarded because of the discovery of the cosmic background radiation and its spectrum.
Is the beginning of our universe our of the limits of our science?
In order to understand the beginning of the universe we have to pop-out and look at it as if we were outside or as a spectator. We cant be part of something and at the same time understand it.
Other theories about the creation of the universe:
Friedman’s solutions to Einstein’s equations: (3 types of universe)
1. Universe expands to a maximum size then contracts.
2. Universe expands rapidly and never stops expanding.
3. Universe expands at critical rates to avoid collapse.
“The big bang was never a purely mathematical theory. It arose out of a combination of observation and theory.” “It accounts for a wealth of available evidence in a relatively simple, efficient and unartificial way; and it ties in with other string theories in such a way as to make eminent sense and suggest further meaningful lines if inquiry and thought. Even though there is a good claim for theory to be true, there are many versions of it.”
In order for a theory to be accepted it must be consistent (maybe not complete).
“Their claims to being correct rest primarily upon arguments of mathematical and logical consistency and the elegance of that consistency.”
You can relate this to GEB’s consistency. For there to be one exact theory it must be complete and consistent.
Kitty discovered mathematics, as she believes all humans discovered math, and did not invent it with music theory. This can relate to the Quadrivium, as music is the application of arithmetic. But then this goes against what Kitty Ferguson says because it would just be an example or could be that people knew music before math? It still would’ve existed in music even if we had never discovered math?
“Life must exist in every sense because there exists a mathematical model of it.”
Mathematical consistency as a first cause in the creation of things? Goes back to is God constrained by mathematical consistency.
So is math created by men or discovered?
Even if the theories about the universe are correct, there would still be a need for something prior to them. Something that “caused the first cause”. So even if we prove a theory we would still be taking a leap of faith. Just like religion. So there might still be a probability of a creator.
Maybe it could be like Hawking’s no boundary universe, where the universe just is. Nothing created it or caused it.
Candidates for the origin of the universe:
“Maybe God’s choice was to allow us freedom as to weather we will believe in him; God simply doesn't want to be found in the physical universe, because that would intimidate us and abolish our freedom of will.” But then again, theories don't have a necessity of a god.
Since we cant really deny or confirm any of these three causes, maybe the initial cause is a combination of all three, like a “holy trinity” of God, math and the universe. They might all exist in perfect in perfect unity.
“As dearly as we may hold those assumptions and as well as they’ve served us in the past, when it comes to arguing for the validity of a proposal for the origin of the universe, these re self-serving arguments – good arguments may be hoping a theory is correct, but no arguments for deciding it is. Such as decision would be an act of faith.”
Trying to solve Einstein’s relativity equations, Abbé Georges Henri was the fist to come up with something like the Big Bang. “There had been a time when everything that makes up the universe was compressed into a space only about thirty times the size of our sun.”
Hubble´s work:
- There are Cephids, stars that regularly change their brightness.
- He showed that there are nebulas in other galaxies.
- He established that there are many other galaxies beside our own.
- One of his revolutionary announcements: “Except for the galaxies that are clustered closest to us, every galaxy in the universe is increasing distance from us and from every other galaxy.”
- “The further away a galaxy is, the further away it is receding.”
“In any direction in space we look, no matter where in the universe we are, we look towards the past.”
We actually see everything in the past, because of the way the light travels. In the world it travels very fast, while in the universe the delay of image is worth considering. We might be seeing things that are millions of years old.
Big Bang theory: all in the universe converges to a single point. The universe suddenly bursts into existence and expanded, around some 13.7 to 14 million years ago.
Steady-State theory: new matter is continuously created as the universe expands.
But the Steady-state theory was discarded because of the discovery of the cosmic background radiation and its spectrum.
Is the beginning of our universe our of the limits of our science?
In order to understand the beginning of the universe we have to pop-out and look at it as if we were outside or as a spectator. We cant be part of something and at the same time understand it.
Other theories about the creation of the universe:
- Wormhole theory / baby-universe theory
- No boundary universe
- Pulsating universe
- Free-lunch universe
Friedman’s solutions to Einstein’s equations: (3 types of universe)
1. Universe expands to a maximum size then contracts.
2. Universe expands rapidly and never stops expanding.
3. Universe expands at critical rates to avoid collapse.
“The big bang was never a purely mathematical theory. It arose out of a combination of observation and theory.” “It accounts for a wealth of available evidence in a relatively simple, efficient and unartificial way; and it ties in with other string theories in such a way as to make eminent sense and suggest further meaningful lines if inquiry and thought. Even though there is a good claim for theory to be true, there are many versions of it.”
In order for a theory to be accepted it must be consistent (maybe not complete).
“Their claims to being correct rest primarily upon arguments of mathematical and logical consistency and the elegance of that consistency.”
You can relate this to GEB’s consistency. For there to be one exact theory it must be complete and consistent.
Kitty discovered mathematics, as she believes all humans discovered math, and did not invent it with music theory. This can relate to the Quadrivium, as music is the application of arithmetic. But then this goes against what Kitty Ferguson says because it would just be an example or could be that people knew music before math? It still would’ve existed in music even if we had never discovered math?
“Life must exist in every sense because there exists a mathematical model of it.”
Mathematical consistency as a first cause in the creation of things? Goes back to is God constrained by mathematical consistency.
So is math created by men or discovered?
Even if the theories about the universe are correct, there would still be a need for something prior to them. Something that “caused the first cause”. So even if we prove a theory we would still be taking a leap of faith. Just like religion. So there might still be a probability of a creator.
Maybe it could be like Hawking’s no boundary universe, where the universe just is. Nothing created it or caused it.
Candidates for the origin of the universe:
- God
- Mathematical and logical consistency
- The universe just is
“Maybe God’s choice was to allow us freedom as to weather we will believe in him; God simply doesn't want to be found in the physical universe, because that would intimidate us and abolish our freedom of will.” But then again, theories don't have a necessity of a god.
Since we cant really deny or confirm any of these three causes, maybe the initial cause is a combination of all three, like a “holy trinity” of God, math and the universe. They might all exist in perfect in perfect unity.
“As dearly as we may hold those assumptions and as well as they’ve served us in the past, when it comes to arguing for the validity of a proposal for the origin of the universe, these re self-serving arguments – good arguments may be hoping a theory is correct, but no arguments for deciding it is. Such as decision would be an act of faith.”
Chapter 5
The Elusive Mind of God
If an alien comes to the universe he most likely wouldn’t believe that God is the first cause. But then again he probably wouldn’t believe that mathematical and logical consistency of the universe is either.
“Only by an act of faith in God, or science could anyone at this point declare which of the first cause candidates really is the first cause.”
God as the embodiment of the laws of physics.
God as the source of raw physics.
“Perhaps the universe is someone’s scientific experiment. Perhaps it was an interesting experiment, abandoned now to boil itself to nothing.”
The question in this chapter is to see if it is possible to accept all explanations without double-think or hypocrisy.
According to Paley:
“According to the argument from design, not only the astounding complexity of nature but also the miraculous way the environment provides for all creatures, including humans, is evidence of an all-powerful God.”
According to Dawkins:
“The theory and evidence of evolution show us that the universe is a universe which could not possibly have a designer.”
Dawkins simulates a computer system that would eventually prove that we need no creator; by making it choose randomly a certain amount of letters and having a goal phrase.
This is like putting faith in a system to think for itself and to come up with new things by its own. (Copying program just like GEB Ch. 16).
Are we a program of God? What if God just created a program to let us choose freely but at the end only let the ones that resemble his ideal survive.
Basic ingredients for a system to adjust itself:
1. Replicators: ability of something to make copies of itself. (GEB 16,17)
2. Replicators must make occasional mistakes when copying themselves
3. Something about the replicators has to have an influence over how likely they are to be replicated.
“To explain the origin of the DNA/protein machine by invoking a supernatural designer is to explain precisely nothing, for it leaves unexplained the origin of the designer. You have to say something like ‘God was always there’ and if you allow yourself that kind of lazy way out, you might as well just say ‘DNA was always there’ or ‘life was always there’ and be done with it.” Dawkins.
If we were in the role of God:
Maybe you would want to experiment and let the planet be free, and take its own course (evolution). Or maybe all the mutations and things that evolved were caused by God, but anyways to us they appear as random acts (evolution).
“The study of evolution tells us that the natural environments on Earth was not necessarily designed with humans in mind.”
I had never thought about that. I think it is natural for the human being to believe that we are the greatest creation (if we can say that) and that everything was made for us. But what if it wasn't? what if it was made for someone or something else? Maybe it wasn't even made at all.
“We cant escape the impression that some careful planning and exquisitely intricate fine-tuning must have occurred with us in mind.”
Antropic principle: we finde the universe to be as it is because we exist.
Inflation theory: what we observe today Is only a small fraction of all there is.
Ether- an invisible medium which was once thought to pervade all space. It was later discarded.
Now days scientists are considering a kind of energy that may pervade all space: Higgs field.
“Different interpretations and speculations are possible, but we must admit, whichever interpretation is ours, that we cannot prove that the other interpretation is wrong.”
If an alien comes to the universe he most likely wouldn’t believe that God is the first cause. But then again he probably wouldn’t believe that mathematical and logical consistency of the universe is either.
“Only by an act of faith in God, or science could anyone at this point declare which of the first cause candidates really is the first cause.”
God as the embodiment of the laws of physics.
God as the source of raw physics.
“Perhaps the universe is someone’s scientific experiment. Perhaps it was an interesting experiment, abandoned now to boil itself to nothing.”
The question in this chapter is to see if it is possible to accept all explanations without double-think or hypocrisy.
According to Paley:
“According to the argument from design, not only the astounding complexity of nature but also the miraculous way the environment provides for all creatures, including humans, is evidence of an all-powerful God.”
According to Dawkins:
“The theory and evidence of evolution show us that the universe is a universe which could not possibly have a designer.”
Dawkins simulates a computer system that would eventually prove that we need no creator; by making it choose randomly a certain amount of letters and having a goal phrase.
This is like putting faith in a system to think for itself and to come up with new things by its own. (Copying program just like GEB Ch. 16).
Are we a program of God? What if God just created a program to let us choose freely but at the end only let the ones that resemble his ideal survive.
Basic ingredients for a system to adjust itself:
1. Replicators: ability of something to make copies of itself. (GEB 16,17)
2. Replicators must make occasional mistakes when copying themselves
3. Something about the replicators has to have an influence over how likely they are to be replicated.
“To explain the origin of the DNA/protein machine by invoking a supernatural designer is to explain precisely nothing, for it leaves unexplained the origin of the designer. You have to say something like ‘God was always there’ and if you allow yourself that kind of lazy way out, you might as well just say ‘DNA was always there’ or ‘life was always there’ and be done with it.” Dawkins.
If we were in the role of God:
Maybe you would want to experiment and let the planet be free, and take its own course (evolution). Or maybe all the mutations and things that evolved were caused by God, but anyways to us they appear as random acts (evolution).
“The study of evolution tells us that the natural environments on Earth was not necessarily designed with humans in mind.”
I had never thought about that. I think it is natural for the human being to believe that we are the greatest creation (if we can say that) and that everything was made for us. But what if it wasn't? what if it was made for someone or something else? Maybe it wasn't even made at all.
“We cant escape the impression that some careful planning and exquisitely intricate fine-tuning must have occurred with us in mind.”
Antropic principle: we finde the universe to be as it is because we exist.
Inflation theory: what we observe today Is only a small fraction of all there is.
Ether- an invisible medium which was once thought to pervade all space. It was later discarded.
Now days scientists are considering a kind of energy that may pervade all space: Higgs field.
“Different interpretations and speculations are possible, but we must admit, whichever interpretation is ours, that we cannot prove that the other interpretation is wrong.”
Chapter 6
The God of Abraham and Jesus
“We can hardly do science without a belief that there is dependable pattern and order to the universe.”
Its interesting that when one just hears about things, such as miracles, we question peoples senses and sanity. We just think they are crazy. But if we were all to see it, then we could prove that it was not something psychological, but rather we would rethink our sciences.
“The laws of nature allowed me my choice.”
This is another interesting thing to consider. And if thought thoroughly it may be true. If not there couldn’t really be any man-made things. We would be breaking too many of those laws.
“God might act in the universe by influencing the conscious and unconscious minds of human beings. If God works in that way, any choice I am allowed becomes by extension an opportunity for input from God”
“However, in the bible we are faced with a God who does also act in ways independent of human intermediaries.”
“How much is really at random about the development of the universe and what goes on in it, and how much is not?”
God of the gaps:
Whenever we have gaps in our knowledge or there is something unexplainable we attribute it to the God-of-the-gaps.
Science is the one who tries to plug up these gaps.
“What we are learning in something which naïve common sense always seemed to tell us, but which sense was slow to recognize as enormously significant – that most systems contains elements both of predictability and unpredictability.”
How can this relate to GEB? Is it the same thing as a system being either complete but inconsistent , or vice-versa? Is this what everyone is afraid of in AI?
Chaos and Complexity:
Instead of filling gaps, it shows how unfillable some of those gaps are.
“We now find to our surprise that predictable systems are the exception, not the rule, even in areas of science which seemed most dependably predictable.”
“For sequences, as in nature, order is the exception, chaos the norm.”-Ford.
Our common sense tells us that these are patterns in most things. (Thinking Fast and Slow)
So Chaos theory studies randomness (weather, sea, solar system, economics, human bodies)
There seems to be an apparent self-organization in the midst of chaos.
Principles of mathematics of Chaos:
Small events have enormous changes.
“How do small changes make a difference in the future of a system and wether it is possible for any being, human or divine, to predict or control future events.” (Chaos theory)
“Those who believe in God welcome Chaos and Complexity for other reasons beyond the fat that these theories reveal gas which human knowledge will still never fill: 1. These theories can be seen to demolish the concept of deterministic, mechanistic universe; 2. Chaos theory appears to allow an omniscient being to determine events through infinitely minute changes in initial conditions.”
Reasons for 2:
Thinking that a God could or couldn't determine the events presupposes that we know more about God than we actually do.
“Not knowing whether our thoughts and actions are predestined by God, truly our own, or predetermined in a biological or mechanical way renders us powerless to judge whether or not our activities add a serious element of unpredictability.”
“It is difficult to think of ourselves as having free-will if someone knows the future and knows what we are going to decide.”
“We can hardly do science without a belief that there is dependable pattern and order to the universe.”
Its interesting that when one just hears about things, such as miracles, we question peoples senses and sanity. We just think they are crazy. But if we were all to see it, then we could prove that it was not something psychological, but rather we would rethink our sciences.
“The laws of nature allowed me my choice.”
This is another interesting thing to consider. And if thought thoroughly it may be true. If not there couldn’t really be any man-made things. We would be breaking too many of those laws.
“God might act in the universe by influencing the conscious and unconscious minds of human beings. If God works in that way, any choice I am allowed becomes by extension an opportunity for input from God”
“However, in the bible we are faced with a God who does also act in ways independent of human intermediaries.”
“How much is really at random about the development of the universe and what goes on in it, and how much is not?”
God of the gaps:
Whenever we have gaps in our knowledge or there is something unexplainable we attribute it to the God-of-the-gaps.
Science is the one who tries to plug up these gaps.
“What we are learning in something which naïve common sense always seemed to tell us, but which sense was slow to recognize as enormously significant – that most systems contains elements both of predictability and unpredictability.”
How can this relate to GEB? Is it the same thing as a system being either complete but inconsistent , or vice-versa? Is this what everyone is afraid of in AI?
Chaos and Complexity:
Instead of filling gaps, it shows how unfillable some of those gaps are.
“We now find to our surprise that predictable systems are the exception, not the rule, even in areas of science which seemed most dependably predictable.”
“For sequences, as in nature, order is the exception, chaos the norm.”-Ford.
Our common sense tells us that these are patterns in most things. (Thinking Fast and Slow)
So Chaos theory studies randomness (weather, sea, solar system, economics, human bodies)
There seems to be an apparent self-organization in the midst of chaos.
Principles of mathematics of Chaos:
Small events have enormous changes.
“How do small changes make a difference in the future of a system and wether it is possible for any being, human or divine, to predict or control future events.” (Chaos theory)
“Those who believe in God welcome Chaos and Complexity for other reasons beyond the fat that these theories reveal gas which human knowledge will still never fill: 1. These theories can be seen to demolish the concept of deterministic, mechanistic universe; 2. Chaos theory appears to allow an omniscient being to determine events through infinitely minute changes in initial conditions.”
Reasons for 2:
Thinking that a God could or couldn't determine the events presupposes that we know more about God than we actually do.
“Not knowing whether our thoughts and actions are predestined by God, truly our own, or predetermined in a biological or mechanical way renders us powerless to judge whether or not our activities add a serious element of unpredictability.”
“It is difficult to think of ourselves as having free-will if someone knows the future and knows what we are going to decide.”
Chapter 7
Inadmissible Evidence
Public knowledge:
The testing, the direct experience of the universe must be repeatable in the public domain.
“Nevertheless, the general principle stands: scientific knowledge is public knowledge and is tested and honed in a public arena.”
Private knowledge:
“Religious evidence may be unrepeatable evidence, appearing at a particular time and place, with a significance that escapes any but those directly involved.”
“Yet religion remains essentially private knowledge, if we consider where the most significant testing of religious evidence takes place. Who is it that ends up convinced, or not convinced by the evidence?” These are private decisions, not a consensus.
“When individual human beings try to determine what is true and what isn’t, they don’t confine themselves to the same methods and tools they use when making such decisions in groups.”
Admissible evidence: first-hand experience
“When there is a serious inconsistency between private experience and public experience, one should doubt ones perceptions, admit the possibility of hallucination, perhaps in an extreme case even question ones sanity. I may be crazy as a loon.”
“Refusing to take the course which religion (God himself?) recommends, may be the equivalent of refusing to use the scientific method to do science.”
Public knowledge:
The testing, the direct experience of the universe must be repeatable in the public domain.
“Nevertheless, the general principle stands: scientific knowledge is public knowledge and is tested and honed in a public arena.”
Private knowledge:
“Religious evidence may be unrepeatable evidence, appearing at a particular time and place, with a significance that escapes any but those directly involved.”
“Yet religion remains essentially private knowledge, if we consider where the most significant testing of religious evidence takes place. Who is it that ends up convinced, or not convinced by the evidence?” These are private decisions, not a consensus.
“When individual human beings try to determine what is true and what isn’t, they don’t confine themselves to the same methods and tools they use when making such decisions in groups.”
Admissible evidence: first-hand experience
“When there is a serious inconsistency between private experience and public experience, one should doubt ones perceptions, admit the possibility of hallucination, perhaps in an extreme case even question ones sanity. I may be crazy as a loon.”
“Refusing to take the course which religion (God himself?) recommends, may be the equivalent of refusing to use the scientific method to do science.”
Chapter 8
Theory of Everything... Mind of God
"After all, who or what besides myself will decide what I accept as truth?"
"But is this a conflict between 'science' and 'religion'?... Two blind faiths confronting one another not only on imaginary horses but on an imaginary battle field."
"Perhaps the most significant difference between science and religion is that science thinks that on this quest we are entirely on our own. Religion tells us that although we who seek the truth may ride an imaginary horse, Truth also seeks us."
"After all, who or what besides myself will decide what I accept as truth?"
"But is this a conflict between 'science' and 'religion'?... Two blind faiths confronting one another not only on imaginary horses but on an imaginary battle field."
"Perhaps the most significant difference between science and religion is that science thinks that on this quest we are entirely on our own. Religion tells us that although we who seek the truth may ride an imaginary horse, Truth also seeks us."