"Steve Makohin" <smakohin@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:smakohin-BF0348.14495209112003@enews.newsguy.com...

In article <bom0fb$ffh$1@news1.mountaincable.net>,
"Tim" <abc@aci.on.ca> wrote:

"John Baker" <nunya@bizniz.net> wrote in message
news:3Xarb.619$zc1.293@fe3.columbus.rr.com...

"jonathan" <one@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:osOdnffnCtU8TDGiRVn-vg@giganews.com...

<snip>

Philosophy is neither science nor religion. It's.....well, let's be

polite

and say "fertilizer..." <G>

Philosophy is love of knowledge. As such it has a lot in common with
science...

<G> Sort of like people who like the music of Kenny G: It's for people
who like the *idea* of jazz, but who don't actually care for that form
of music.

They use different measuring sticks and philosophy has a broader
scope than science...

Your statement is true only because of your chosen use of the word of
"knowledge" in place of "facts".

That's correct. Your statement applies equally well to science and religion.
Again, through a value positing activity ie. a philosophical activity one
chooses what one looks at.

Similarly, if I memorized all the
scripts of every Simpsons episode ever made, one could argue that I
had amassed a substantial pool of "knowledge", but from a scientific
perspective, this would be little more than an exercise in
memorization.

Science deals with the real world, and with proven facts. Philosophy
deals with people's opinions and justifications for actions and
values. Is it "right" to kill another human under a specific set of
circumstances. What "should" the role of government be? None of these
items are factual.

Science is an intellectual pursuit as is philosophy....

Science needs
philosophy so as to make proof claims...

Philosophy deals with, among other
things, epistemology and ethics. Both of these have practical import on the
real world. Knowledge of ethics is more useful to most and a hell of a lot
more practical to most than say string theory.

Now this is not to say that philosophy is useless, because it has
proven not to be. Philosophy may foster brilliant new ideas for
economic modeling, or for national governance, and through these
philosophies, humans may attempt new things and feel they are better
off for it. There is no guarantee of success or the probability of
success, but new ideas will be formed and possibly put to the test.

Yes, I would say that science was one of those brilliant ideas.

...This broadness of scope leaves philosophy open to attack
from closed minds...

I don't see philosophy as "science, but with a broader scope." In
fact, philosophy is completely unlike science because a philosophy may
be held in high regard even though it is not proven to be true (not so
in science, and in the case of theories, there must be abundant
evidence that suggests the theory is very _likely_ to be true even
though it is not proven to be true).

Peer review plays a critical role in the success or failure of scientific
theories and research. The same occurs in philosophy. Shitty science and
philosophy are hopefully left by the wayside.

...Science, devoid of philosophy, is incapable of conveying
meaning...

That depends on how you define "meaning". The question "why am I
here?" is truthfully and accurately answered by a reply such as "I am
the result of the act of procreation between my biological parents" (I
recognize elements such as favorable conditions for fertilization,
gestation, etc). Religion and philosophy try to "answer" the bigger
"why" (as well as doing other things), trying to describe the
"purpose" of human existence: self-realization, to worship god, to
evolve to a higher spiritual form and escape the wheel of rebirth --
all of which cannot be proven to be anything more than a faith-based
opinion.

The question of definition is not a question for science. It is a
philosophical question.

Fortunately, people in general accept philosophy to be an intellectual
exercise, a "creative thinking", that makes us more vibrant and
creative thinkers, even if that line of thinking is not entirely fact
based. This is a short-coming of religion which is dogmatic in nature.

See string theory.

"Immortalist" <Reanimater_2000@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:vqt64ahhfoukd0@corp.supernews.com...

"jonathan" <one@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:Iq-dneGHd6DyiTOi4p2dnA@giganews.com...

"Immortalist" <Reanimater_2000@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:vqqhk25rr047ac@corp.supernews.com...

"jonathan" <one@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:osOdnffnCtU8TDGiRVn-vg@giganews.com...

3) Derives laws from the observations of things.

Derives theories, since most scientists will tell you there are no

but

only good and better theories.

I agree that there are no laws, at least in the way the word
is typically used. Only universal tendencies exist.

But a theory is a doctrine, or scheme of things, which terminates in
speculation or contemplation, without a view to practice; hypothesis;
speculation - about observations relaying their part in conceptions of
"tendencies in the universe mean."

a) The parts are chaotic and the whole is always unique.

Some parts have been shown to be rythimic and iterative or repeats

stable

repeats at intra-scale levels and therefore it is not the case that

times are those times when parts are chaotic.

In a self-organized system the connectivity between the parts
are always tenuous to some extent or another. The parts
have an inherent level of uncertainty as a result.
They tremble, due to the network characteristics
of the whole they are a part of.

When water turns from liquid to solid [ice] the tremble of the atoms is
produced by being above "absolute zero degrees" and is called Brownian
Motion.

That is an archaic concept. The particles stop trembling at absolute
zero as they are no longer connected to anything else. That point
is an unnatural state and as such is meaningless.

But when the liquid turn to solid this edge between is transgressed
and strange clumps of solidity appear still floating in a matrix of H2O
molecules.

Yes, at the edge of chaos the components are both and neither. Just
as a cloud is continually changing states. Determining which is which
is impossible at their critical point. Their trajectories in phase space

so tangled around each other when at the critical point between their
subcritical and supracritical images.

Now not just one sized chunk or even one scale of chunks. Its like the

levels of grammar and syntax can be emulated; lines, letters, words,
sentences, paragraphs, sections, chapters and the entire book. This edge

chaos is that region where chunks are caught between phase space. Gas,
liquid and solid are 3 phase space these H2O moleculaes can arrange.

Their phase space is decided by the network they are embedded in.
Gas and solid are the two classical states, fluids are when the
two states bound the critical point between each other. As such
fluids, dynamic motion is an output, not an initial condition.

At a particular and sometimes very hard spot of chunkiness to tune in

parts are not tenuous but rigid, "simulate linear hierarchies," and can

very hard to nock out of phase space confusion.

OR if you like; a bifurcation diagram would show this grammer/syntax
http://www.engr.ukans.edu/~stylian/henonbifurc.jpg
http://www.uvm.edu/~aporwitz/mathematica/bg/bifurcation.jpg
http://www.backspaces.net/CSSSid/bifurcation.jpg
http://geol.queensu.ca/people/pearce/res.html

Now if the links are good for the images, you see one line dividing into

lines. This is getting cool and the first chunks of ices are starting to
float in the water. Lets call them letters. If we lower the temperature

a tiny bit but not to much those two line from the one will each sprout

lines of their own. At this point we have two sizzes of chunks but the
larger consists of smallers chunk conjoined together in a stable manner.

Now comes the hard part; how to lower the temperature just the tiniest

And then more scales appear and we will call them sentences because they
have parts that are word chunks which in their turn are made of letter

chunks.

The entire hierarchy of a book is in that image where things seem to

from local divisions allowing it.

Self-organization is when a system is driven far from equilibrium
and approaches chaos through period doubling or bifurcations.


Instead of looking at the bifurcations, one should look at what
systems do when they bifurcate. They display universal behavior.

Now turn the entire diagram so the many branches point up and you have

entire story of a tree:
http://pages.cpsc.ucalgary.ca/~peterm/tree_images.html

This one is a micro-degree off but tecelates anyway towards the cool

is it warm?
http://www.tjhsst.edu/~dhyatt/superap/web/jding/pics/bifurc.jpg

Extrapolating from the parts to the whole is an
exercise in futility. But that is what classical
science and physics has been trying to do
from day one.

Extrapolating from the whole to the parts produces the same mishap. We

a bigger perspective than this dualism.

This is where complexity science introduces relativity. When looking
at a part one uses classical methods. When looking at the whole
one should use ecosystem/complexity methods. The method
used is transformed from classical to non-linear relative
to how the observer defines the system.

In this way subjectivity is introduced and the observer
becomes a variable in what is being studied.
Since the universe is coeveolutionary in nature
the observer cannot be removed without losing
the primary mechanism of evolution. Which is that
network characteristics drive creation. In isolation
a component creates nothing 'greater' than itself.

I am in society but I am made of organs. I am another level between

and body organs; a *feature*

My organs are in a body but are made of tissues and hence are also
*features* in a tension between the body and the tissues.

So on down to strings and up to brains.

But we need a way to talk about all these levels feeding back and forth

is like an explanation of a musical composition but also shows a
syntactical temperature loc [linear web hierarchy].

Reality is an iterative loop into itself, not a linear progression.

Jonathan

s

b) Causation exists in both directions.

True! But not true that it has been shown by this here argument that

science

or religion at all times when concerned with causation are always

when

causation is infered not to come from both directions.

c) The only "Universal" laws are those that explain
...both...objects and life.

No objects have yet been found by religion, science, nor you third

category.

I was referring to the situation where we seem to have two
sets of axioms, one for material systems, another for the
living. Universal 'laws' must be those that apply
to both with equal validity.

Sounds almost like we need a theory of systems then. We could call it
systems theory! This would not all possible system types and potentials.

It's no wonder a grand unified theory has escaped
discovery through the four forces. As those axioms
are derived from a subset of the universe, the material
subset.

When we are changing phase spaces partly becuase of historical change we
start from what we have and get to the next configuration of patterned
processes by traveling from there. Its hard to see the shoulders we are
standing upon but this classical science you deride is the shoulders

theory was viewed first time; land ho gipper [in a long shouting voice

atop the ship when land came into view]

You should be thankful for all the mistakes you can now avoid and

look a gift horse in the moth or the giver might take it back.

Complexity science is valid for both, as such is
the only hope for any true universal
understanding.

But you are confusing wholosm with systems theory. Integrationalism is a
more appropriate term; see all those entities in the book, their somehow
seperate and at the same time related {objectifiable}

To be called Philosophy it must sum to 21. Or it is no more
complete than science or religion.

4.969

That number will come in very handy Monday morning
when the stock market opens. The concepts of
complexity science makes stock prediction
child's-play. I'll give you a hint.

The edge of chaos is where volatility and
predictability converge to simultaneous
maximums.

A particular region just between two phase spaces can telescope

r' us baby.

Remember, in complexity science one must
scale up to understand, the reverse of classical
methods. Take a good long look at the
largest scale of the dow and nasdaq.

Contraire the complexifist must acount for systems and this necessarily
implies a grasp of reductionism, wholism, and a bunch of strange

caught between them, we will call features. Or maybe we call them
mesoscopic; trapped between the macroscopic and the microscopic. Just

your weather man, science did the same mistake in reverse as ou make

http://www.calresco.org/milov/ymtemcss.htm




Jonathan

s

Jonathan


s