Chaos Theory What Makes an Accident?

[bbyrd009]

"...Complex systems are systems that contain so much motion (so many elements that move) that computers are required to calculate all the various possibilities. That is why Chaos Theory could not have emerged before the second half of the 20th century.

Sigmund Freud
But there is another reason that Chaos Theory was born so recently, and that is the Quantum Mechanical Revolution and how it ended the deterministic era!

Up to the Quantum Mechanical Revolution people believed that things were directly caused by other things, that what went up had to come down, and that if only we could catch and tag every particle in the universe we could predict events from then on. Entire governments and systems of belief were (and, sadly, are still) founded on these beliefs, and when Sigmund Freud invented psychoanalysis, he headed out from the idea that malfunctions in the mind are the results of traumas suffered in the past. Regression would allow the patient to stroll down memory lane, pinpoint the sore spot and rub it away with Freud's healing techniques that were again based on linear cause and effect.

Chaos Theory however taught us that nature most often works in patterns..."
http://www.abarim-publications.com/ChaosTheoryIntroduction.html#.WmflRqinGUl

 

[bbyrd009]

The first 144 digits of pi add up to 666
ibid

 

[Triumph1300]

It's all going over my head.
I just take what the Bible says and stick to that.
Plain and simple.

 

[bbyrd009]

duly noted, ty

"The circle is impervious to a numerical approach and it stands as a symbol for scientific insufficiency.

Pi lies. Pi lies by nature of its transcendence, and has no relationship to reality. In fact, by its very nature, the more accurate we represent pi in numbers, the less accurate it represents nature!

Because pi is transcendent, it can not be written down in a finite string of numbers, not even in the Bible even if the Hebrews had decimal notation, which they didn't. Pi is also not rational and can therefore not be written down as the ratio between two other numbers. Pi can not even be caught in any finite algebraic equation. In other words, the number pi can not be fully written down in any way! It leans heavily on the concept of infinity, like the whole number sequence does, and infinity does not occur in nature.

If the Bible were to contain an accurate representation of something that isn't true to begin with (pi), it should use a method that has no precedent in nature and look like an infinite series; like these:

— or —

The Bible shows no such thing. When the Bible was written, no such notations existed. And even if it did, it would only have served to display a numerical tower of Babel.

The only practical function pi in all its extend has is to test new computers for their speed and accuracy. And the number of pi-digits that we can calculate is a measure for our technological abilities. It used to be fire: the hotter the fire, the more advanced a nation was and the stronger its weaponry and tools were. Nowadays it's computer power.

And even though there's nothing wrong with using computers (we're using one now to show you all these things, aren't we?) the rub lies in the place we give our power to compute in constructing a model of reality around us, and the hope we invest in it that it may some day deliver us from all our shortcomings and failures.

Stairway to heaven
The Titans tried it. The tower builders of Babel tried it. And mathematics tried it too. In the beginning of the twentieth century the cry was heard for the establishment of a bouquet of axioms that was completely consistent and totally able to cover all truths that could flow forth from the axioms. The so-called Hilbert program commenced, with David Hilbert waving the banner and leading an army of mathematical prospectors.

Quoting Keith Devlin's Mathematics; The Science Of Patterns, page 62:

"Any dreams that the Hilbert program could be completed were dashed in 1931, when a young Austrian mathematician called Kurt Gödel proved a result that was to change our view of mathematics for ever.[...] There will always be some questions that cannot be answered on the basis of the axioms."

In mathematics it is of crucial importance that we state on which geometry we place our truths. Saying that pi equals 3.1415... works only on a perfectly flat Euclidean geometry (which doesn't exist in nature, by the way). If we work on a Riemannian geometry (that's perfectly spherical; which also doesn't exist in nature) pi is smaller than flat-pi and also varies between smaller and bigger circles on the same sphere. And on a hyperbolic geometry, pi is not even a constant but varies as we travel along a circle. After Gödel it is of crucial importance that our truths go accompanied with the geometry, or theometry, upon which they are stated.

Since math is the language of science, science has pronounced its own incompleteness; there is something beyond the reach of scientific approach. Scientific truth is not equal to absolute Truth. All-encompassing Truth exists beyond the bubble of science and shouldn't be sought in facts and theories."
http://www.abarim-publications.com/Bible_Commentary/1Kings7v23.html#.Wmfq8qinGUk

 

[Wormwood]

I wonder if the first 175 digits of pi could be added up to 777. I heard a detective once say, “Numbers, when tortured enough, will confess to anything.” :)

 

[junobet]

duly noted, ty

"The circle is impervious to a numerical approach and it stands as a symbol for scientific insufficiency.

Pi lies. Pi lies by nature of its transcendence, and has no relationship to reality. In fact, by its very nature, the more accurate we represent pi in numbers, the less accurate it represents nature!

Because pi is transcendent, it can not be written down in a finite string of numbers, not even in the Bible even if the Hebrews had decimal notation, which they didn't. Pi is also not rational and can therefore not be written down as the ratio between two other numbers. Pi can not even be caught in any finite algebraic equation. In other words, the number pi can not be fully written down in any way! It leans heavily on the concept of infinity, like the whole number sequence does, and infinity does not occur in nature.

If the Bible were to contain an accurate representation of something that isn't true to begin with (pi), it should use a method that has no precedent in nature and look like an infinite series; like these:

— or —

The Bible shows no such thing. When the Bible was written, no such notations existed. And even if it did, it would only have served to display a numerical tower of Babel.

The only practical function pi in all its extend has is to test new computers for their speed and accuracy. And the number of pi-digits that we can calculate is a measure for our technological abilities. It used to be fire: the hotter the fire, the more advanced a nation was and the stronger its weaponry and tools were. Nowadays it's computer power.

And even though there's nothing wrong with using computers (we're using one now to show you all these things, aren't we?) the rub lies in the place we give our power to compute in constructing a model of reality around us, and the hope we invest in it that it may some day deliver us from all our shortcomings and failures.

Stairway to heaven
The Titans tried it. The tower builders of Babel tried it. And mathematics tried it too. In the beginning of the twentieth century the cry was heard for the establishment of a bouquet of axioms that was completely consistent and totally able to cover all truths that could flow forth from the axioms. The so-called Hilbert program commenced, with David Hilbert waving the banner and leading an army of mathematical prospectors.

Quoting Keith Devlin's Mathematics; The Science Of Patterns, page 62:

"Any dreams that the Hilbert program could be completed were dashed in 1931, when a young Austrian mathematician called Kurt Gödel proved a result that was to change our view of mathematics for ever.[...] There will always be some questions that cannot be answered on the basis of the axioms."

In mathematics it is of crucial importance that we state on which geometry we place our truths. Saying that pi equals 3.1415... works only on a perfectly flat Euclidean geometry (which doesn't exist in nature, by the way). If we work on a Riemannian geometry (that's perfectly spherical; which also doesn't exist in nature) pi is smaller than flat-pi and also varies between smaller and bigger circles on the same sphere. And on a hyperbolic geometry, pi is not even a constant but varies as we travel along a circle. After Gödel it is of crucial importance that our truths go accompanied with the geometry, or theometry, upon which they are stated.

Since math is the language of science, science has pronounced its own incompleteness; there is something beyond the reach of scientific approach. Scientific truth is not equal to absolute Truth. All-encompassing Truth exists beyond the bubble of science and shouldn't be sought in facts and theories."
1 Kings 7:23 | The problem of the number Pi in the Bible | Commentary

Well, according to Gallileo “Mathematics is the language in which God has written the universe”. I very much hope God also has other effective means of communicating with us because math was never my strong subject. You may however be interested in this lecture, which I found to be quite mind-blowing:

Religion and the quantum world

 

[bbyrd009]

I wonder if the first 175 digits of pi could be added up to 777. I heard a detective once say, “Numbers, when tortured enough, will confess to anything.” :)

actually the author was making the same point there!

 

[bbyrd009]

It's all going over my head.
I just take what the Bible says and stick to that.
Plain and simple.

Well, according to Gallileo “Mathematics is the language in which God has written the universe”. I very much hope God also has other effective means of communicating with us because math was never my strong subject. You may however be interested in this lecture, which I found to be quite mind-blowing:

Religion and the quantum world

this ended up being a treatise on truth, and how we individually arrive at approximations of truth. The point as i got it was not that maths do not help one arrive at a better truth, but that logic can only take one so far. But we force logic to take us all the way, as we demonstrate when we insist that our truth is the law, and that everyone else must believe our truth.

So, we end up insisting on pi, see, which does not even exist in nature, cannot be a ratio (bc it is not a rational number), and is not even a number per se, and denying "3" in the Bible as being accurate there @ the description of the brass sea, when pi was known to be slightly more than 3 even then.

So, is the Bible wrong? Lying? Or speaking to relevance?

Changing your mind is very difficult, particularly so once you have made up your mind on a matter. Evidence to the contrary can now be put right in your face, and you will not see it. This is hardly a revelation, and yet it is persistent, even once we become aware of it. There is a psychological reason for this--that being that at one time, we had to make value decisions that meant life or death--that functionally no longer obtains, but again, changing your mind, and particularly un-making a made up mind, is a difficult process, made virtually impossible if we are convinced that a belief is a matter of life or death, as is inferred in most Christian belief systems.

ty junobet, i'll check out the link, be interesting to compare them!

 

[bbyrd009]

conclusion (ibid)
"Numbers are real and their power is formidable. But they have by no means the last word in the universe. Any system that only counts on numbers, will fail. And that is much less religious than it sounds. Since mathematics is the language of science, and mathematics must remain incomplete, science must remain incomplete. In other words: you never know what you don't know, and an extremely rare natural event may occur smack in the middle of your scientific predictions and throw your time-honored theory unceremoniously off reality's track."

 

[bbyrd009]

Religion and the quantum world

ya, this is a similar treatise, makes most of the same points, a good confirmation imo.

Truth and facts are not what we perceive either to be, iow.
The truth or facts change, as the method of measuring them changes, and etc.

 

[bbyrd009]

it ended the deterministic era!

another way of stating that "he who forwards opinions as truth is deceived."
"i know the truth" thus becomes an outright lie, unless the "truth" finishes with "i do not know" or some other statement of incompleteness, a la "unless other factors are considered," or etc

ppl who insist that they have or know the truth are speaking deterministically, not realizing that truth reveals them for what they are at that moment

 

[amadeus]

You are talking really about the indescribable, unsearchable God as per...

"For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD.
For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts." Isaiah 55:8-9

Like Pi God also has no limits of boundaries that man can really understand with that which he has when born to woman.

 

[lforrest]

another way of stating that "he who forwards opinions as truth is deceived."
"i know the truth" thus becomes an outright lie, unless the "truth" finishes with "i do not know" or some other statement of incompleteness, a la "unless other factors are considered," or etc

ppl who insist that they have or know the truth are speaking deterministically, not realizing that truth reveals them for what they are at that moment

Is this whole thing an argument for meta-ethical moral relativism?

 

[lforrest]

Repent! Pi can be represented as a rational number, when your number system is base Pi.

 

[bbyrd009]

Is this whole thing an argument for meta-ethical moral relativism?

ah, not sure, i would first ask where you stand @ "a sin for you may not be a sin for me," to get a baseline. It strikes me more as a treatise of determinism ("i have the truth...") than one of moral relativity, although that might certainly derive i guess.

 

[bbyrd009]

Repent! Pi can be represented as a rational number, when your number system is base Pi.

ah, and where would you stop, in repping this base? Without a complete pi, you would always have to qualify anyway, right? "Base pi to umpty-ump decimals," iow.

and then of course the diameter would just become irrational, as the author notes

 

[lforrest]

ah, and where would you stop, in repping this base? Without a complete pi, you would always have to qualify anyway, right? "Base pi to umpty-ump decimals," iow.

and then of course the diameter would just become irrational, as the author notes

So consider Pi as an unknown constant, and treat things relative to it with algebraic expressions.

 

[bbyrd009]

So consider Pi as an unknown constant, and treat things relative to it with algebraic expressions.

to what end now, are we heading? What is the point here, iow. the author treats this as well, pointing out that c is not really a number either. Yes, we could do all of those things, certainly, but the fact that maths breaks down in the face of reality remains nonetheless, i guess. A central point is that we approach "truth" via "facts" (maths), when in truth rounding is going to be required, to comport with reality.

i brought this thread in at the interesting part, but really anyone interested should go back to the Two Boxes thing, i'll pull it up
The Standard Model

 

[lforrest]

to what end now, are we heading? What is the point here, iow. the author treats this as well, pointing out that c is not really a number either. Yes, we could do all of those things, certainly, but the fact that maths breaks down in the face of reality remains nonetheless, i guess

Its just idealistic human simplifications. We do it all the time, viewing the world in the abstract because it would be impractical to look at the details all the time.

 

[bbyrd009]

Its just idealistic human simplifications. We do it all the time, viewing the world in the abstract because it would be impractical to look at the details all the time.

ya--the gist is that we arrive at our statements of "truth" the same way...

"In Scripture Theory we're not trying to choose between possibilities, but regard all possibilities that are contained in the text. Just like a quantum particle that can not be split and still manages to zip through two slots simultaneously, a line or literary event, especially in ancient Hebrew, may be self-similar to two or more other lines or events. For understandable practical reasons, translations of the Bible usually give us only one possibility, and so doing become like large objects that can only go through one slot at the same time, painting a completely different picture than the original, and operating fundamentally otherwise than the original.

Often translations and exegeses of old have chosen for a certain possibility which in more modern times has proven to be somewhat unfortunate. And as these unfortunate possibilities have nested themselves firmly in our collective mind, the correction of these flaws is almost undoable and becomes most painful for those who most love the text.

Hence popular understanding of Scriptures often has nothing to do with it — click here for some examples."
Scripture Theory for Beginners; An Introduction