Searching for GOD...

[bluehillside Retd.]

Oh blimey – the Great Evader’s back,

The mathematical equations needed for some of the complex sets of chaos are extremely simple.

That stands as a corrective for your claim.

And for those of us working in English?

What on earth do you even think you mean by “complex sets of chaos”?

I always thought chaos theory came and went quite quickly in popularity. I often wonder if The Dawkinistas stymied it like they tried to stymie Giaia theory as their Lord and Master didn't go a bundle on it.......or is that just me wanting to pin some shit on the good Dawkter?

That’s exactly what it is – every word of it. What on earth do you think chaos theory has to do with Richard Dawkins?

[Shaker]

AB,

I was just postulating what pre conditions might be needed to facilitate the process of evolution, and what might happen if some of these pre conditions were different or missing.

Either organic life wouldn't start at all if the conditions weren't right, or if it did it would probably adapt and evolve as its environment changed. Your big mistake here seems to be your assumption that Homo sapiens is some kind of end-game or goal rather than the chance outcome of a hugely long chain of genetic mutations.

That's what Alan and his ilk need to believe.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Oh blimey – the Great Evader’s back,

The mathematical equations needed for some of the complex sets of chaos are extremely simple.

That stands as a corrective for your claim.

And for those of us working in English?

What on earth do you even think you mean by “complex sets of chaos”?

I always thought chaos theory came and went quite quickly in popularity. I often wonder if The Dawkinistas stymied it like they tried to stymie Giaia theory as their Lord and Master didn't go a bundle on it.......or is that just me wanting to pin some shit on the good Dawkter?

That’s exactly what it is – every word of it. What on earth do you think chaos theory has to do with Richard Dawkins?

What's this....an area of scholarship you no not much about. And there was me thinking it was only theology, faeriology and Leprechology.

Chaos theory as popular science came and went very rapidly at around the time the ''science journalist in chief'' was at his height with his popular science works which were actually scientific. It's true though that Dawkins wanted to strangle Gaia theory at birth because presumably it was holistic and Dawkins is Arseclenchingly reductionist.

[Shaker]

I always thought chaos theory came and went quite quickly in popularity. I often wonder if The Dawkinistas stymied it like they tried to stymie Giaia theory as their Lord and Master didn't go a bundle on it.......or is that just me wanting to pin some shit on the good Dawkter?

Of course it is, even to the extent that you make shit up about or (usually) completely fail to understand anything said by the object of your obsession.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Dud,

What's this....an area of scholarship you no not much about. And there was me thinking it was only theology, faeriology and Leprechology.

How much I might know about it is a different matter. For now, you might want to think about trying to express a cogent thought on it rather than the random word generator approach you’ve opted for.

Chaos theory as popular science came and went very rapidly…

No it didn’t. It’s still very much part of mathematics in particular. Just Google it for further information.

… at around the time the ''science journalist in chief''…

Who?

… was at his height with his popular science works which were actually scientific. It's true though that Dawkins wanted to strangle Gaia theory at birth because presumably it was holistic and Dawkins is Arseclenchingly reductionist.

First, no doubt you’ll be along any time now with evidence of this “strangling”.

Second, if RD disagreed with James Lovelock's Gaia hypothesis presumably he did so because he thought the science was poor. If he did, why do you think he was wrong about that? 

Third, as has been explained to you many times now you cannot be “reductionist” unless you first establish that there’s something to reduce from. And no, your “whateverpospsintomyhead-ism” theory of objective fact doesn’t qualify.

Good grief. 

[Outrider]

Chaos theory as popular science came and went very rapidly at around the time the ''science journalist in chief'' was at his height with his popular science works which were actually scientific.

Chaos theory came and went in popular culture fairly quickly because it's popularity centred on Jeff Goldblum's character in Jurassic Park. It's still a valid field of study, it just turns out that it doesn't have very many practical applications: it's just a case of 'complex situations will be difficult to predict or control'. Not exactly rocket science.

It's true though that Dawkins wanted to strangle Gaia theory at birth because presumably it was holistic and Dawkins is Arseclenchingly reductionist.

I don't recall Professor Dawkins speaking on Gaia theory particularly, but he may well have done - I don't seem to be nearly as obsessed with him as you do. As to the idea, it seems a sort of romanticisation of the idea of an interdependent biosphere, which in itself is hardly new.

O.

[Rhiannon]

According to Lovelock it was Dawkins who dissed Gaia early on and stopped his theory from being taken seriously when the damage could have better been averted/reversed.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Rhi,

According to Lovelock it was Dawkins who dissed Gaia early on and stopped his theory from being taken seriously when the damage could have better been averted/reversed.

RD critiqued it in The Extended Phenotype, after which the theory was significantly revised. That's a long way from "strangling" anything.

[Outrider]

According to Lovelock it was Dawkins who dissed Gaia early on and stopped his theory from being taken seriously when the damage could have better been averted/reversed.

Having looked into it, the problem scientists seem to have with Lovelock is not his idea that bio-organisms have an effect on the biosphere, which isn't very contentious at all, but rather that he suggests this is down to some sort of collective subconscious deliberate intent - a collective subconscious intent that, to date, Lovelock has failed to provide any evidence for.

O.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Outy,

Having looked into it, the problem scientists seem to have with Lovelock is not his idea that bio-organisms have an effect on the biosphere, which isn't very contentious at all, but rather that he suggests this is down to some sort of collective subconscious deliberate intent - a collective subconscious intent that, to date, Lovelock has failed to provide any evidence for.

Ooh, you're just being so - you know - reductionist maaan...

[jeremyp]

Hillside, The mathematical equations needed for some of the complex sets of chaos are extremely simple.
That stands as a corrective for your claim.

What you say? Complexity can arise from simple things like certain mathematical equations? And there was me thinking your argument was that complexity couldn't arise from simple things which is why God has to exist.

I think you just threw the baby out with the bath water.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Outy,

Having looked into it, the problem scientists seem to have with Lovelock is not his idea that bio-organisms have an effect on the biosphere, which isn't very contentious at all, but rather that he suggests this is down to some sort of collective subconscious deliberate intent - a collective subconscious intent that, to date, Lovelock has failed to provide any evidence for.

Ooh, you're just being so - you know - reductionist maaan...

Lovelock refuted teleology in his theory.
Lovelock apparently put most opposition down to a lack of understanding of non linear mathematics.......Exactly the type of mathematics which gives rise to complex sets in Chaos theory.......The plot thickens....could the dead hand of Dawkinism be at play in the strange case of the vanishing chaos theory?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Dud,

Lovelock refuted teleology in his theory.
Lovelock apparently put most opposition down to a lack of understanding of non linear mathematics.......Exactly the type of mathematics which gives rise to complex sets in Chaos theory.......The plot thickens....could the dead hand of Dawkinism be at play in the strange case of the vanishing chaos theory?

No it doesn't and no it isn't. You do realise that Richard Dawkins is an evolutionary biologist and not Lord Voldermort don't you?

Don't you?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Hillside, The mathematical equations needed for some of the complex sets of chaos are extremely simple.
That stands as a corrective for your claim.

What you say? Complexity can arise from simple things like certain mathematical equations? And there was me thinking your argument was that complexity couldn't arise from simple things which is why God has to exist.
.

Nope what is in question is Dawkins assertion that only a highly evolved and complex being is necessary for the universe we have.
That's debateable on two counts....that complexity everywhere has to evolve.
That presupposes a material universe. And that Darwinian evolution is necessary for complexity.

Unfortunately for you there is a whole world of complex mathematics along with the simple stuff ......which got there without Darwinian evolution.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Dud,

Lovelock refuted teleology in his theory.
Lovelock apparently put most opposition down to a lack of understanding of non linear mathematics.......Exactly the type of mathematics which gives rise to complex sets in Chaos theory.......The plot thickens....could the dead hand of Dawkinism be at play in the strange case of the vanishing chaos theory?

No it doesn't and no it isn't. You do realise that Richard Dawkins is an evolutionary biologist and not Lord Voldermort don't you?

Don't you?

Wait a minute though Hillside Lord Voldemort did some great things...............terrible..............but great.

Similarly, The Dawk Lord himself made some great TV shows..................terrible.....................but great.


Have you ever seen them in the same room together?

[jeremyp]

Hillside, The mathematical equations needed for some of the complex sets of chaos are extremely simple.
That stands as a corrective for your claim.

What you say? Complexity can arise from simple things like certain mathematical equations? And there was me thinking your argument was that complexity couldn't arise from simple things which is why God has to exist.
.

Nope what is in question is Dawkins assertion that only a highly evolved and complex being is necessary for the universe we have.

You're screwed either way. Either complexity is needed to create complexity, in which case how is there a god, or it isn't in which case why do we need a god?

That's debateable on two counts....that complexity everywhere has to evolve.
That presupposes a material universe. And that Darwinian evolution is necessary for complexity.

That seems reasonable to me. glad that's settled.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Hillside, The mathematical equations needed for some of the complex sets of chaos are extremely simple.
That stands as a corrective for your claim.

What you say? Complexity can arise from simple things like certain mathematical equations? And there was me thinking your argument was that complexity couldn't arise from simple things which is why God has to exist.
.

Nope what is in question is Dawkins assertion that only a highly evolved and complex being is necessary for the universe we have.

You're screwed either way. Either complexity is needed to create complexity, in which case how is there a god, or it isn't in which case why do we need a god?

For the simple from which the complex arises. The double pendulum still has to swing

If maths itself is complicated then it is so irrespective of Darwinian evolution.

[Alan Burns]

AB,

I was just postulating what pre conditions might be needed to facilitate the process of evolution, and what might happen if some of these pre conditions were different or missing.

Either organic life wouldn't start at all if the conditions weren't right, or if it did it would probably adapt and evolve as its environment changed. Your big mistake here seems to be your assumption that Homo sapiens is some kind of end-game or goal rather than the chance outcome of a hugely long chain of genetic mutations.

That's what Alan and his ilk need to believe.

But the probability that that Homo sapiens are unique in their attributes of perceived free will and self awareness would indicate that they have been singled out as something special, and are not just a chance outcome but have been nurtured by a creative source beyond our imaginaton.  It is not just wishful thinking to believe we are special.  It is reality.

[Outrider]

Lovelock refuted teleology in his theory.

And the scientific community looked into his commentary and, collectively, decided that his refutation wasn't sufficient.

Lovelock apparently put most opposition down to a lack of understanding of non linear mathematics.......Exactly the type of mathematics which gives rise to complex sets in Chaos theory.......The plot thickens....could the dead hand of Dawkinism be at play in the strange case of the vanishing chaos theory?

Chaos theory has not vanished, it's back where it was before Jurassic Park came out, as a curious element of maths and statistics.

The Gaia theory, meanwhile, is exactly where it should be: in the scientific conversation as an hypothesis, awaiting refinement and sufficient evidence to become an accepted scientific law, which may or may not ever happen.

Given that Professor Dawkins does not, to the best of my knowledge, review papers for the major periodicals, nor have some sort of Spectre-like grip on the scientific community, their continued reluctance to accept Lovelock's claims seem less like one man's beligerent crusade as you'd like to picture, and just the scientific process at work.

O.

[Outrider]

Nope what is in question is Dawkins assertion that only a highly evolved and complex being is necessary for the universe we have.

Is that an assertion he's made, or just one that you've decided he's made?

That's debateable on two counts....that complexity everywhere has to evolve.
That presupposes a material universe. And that Darwinian evolution is necessary for complexity.

Well, the two I would have chosen were, 'It makes no sense' and 'I don't think he's actually said that' so that's at least four.

Unfortunately for you there is a whole world of complex mathematics along with the simple stuff ......which got there without Darwinian evolution.

I'm sure you think you're making a point, because you've stopped typing... I'm just still not sure what it is.

Mathematics is not 'invented', it's discovered.

O.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

But the probability that that Homo sapiens are unique in their attributes of perceived free will and self awareness would indicate that they have been singled out as something special, and are not just a chance outcome but have been nurtured by a creative source beyond our imaginaton.  It is not just wishful thinking to believe we are special.  It is reality.

No it isn't - you're committing a very common mistake known as survivor bias (or the lottery winner's fallacy). The lottery winner might look at odds of 14 million-to-one against and think, "wow - how special am I?" because he's starting from the wrong reference point - ie, himself. The point though is that, from Camelot's point of view, the odds are 1 - someone is more or less bound to win, only they don't know or care who it will be.

From the perspective of the universe, that life is likely to emerge - perhaps many times and in many places - is no big deal as it does not (and cannot) care a jot what that life will be. Do you think that there's a six-headed bingle monster somewhere on Alpha Centauri who, just like you, is thinking, "wow, how special am I"?

You keep running smack dab into logical errors like this, and they keep undermining your opinions completely.

Sorry, but there it is.

[Outrider]

But the probability that that Homo sapiens are unique in their attributes of perceived free will and self awareness would indicate that they have been singled out as something special, and are not just a chance outcome but have been nurtured by a creative source beyond our imaginaton.  It is not just wishful thinking to believe we are special.  It is reality.

And how did you come to that assessment of 'uniqueness'? There are billions of galaxies, each with billions of stars, each of which could have dozens of planets. Even with bordering on infinitessimal chances of advanced life developing on each one, that's still a reasonable probability that we aren't unique, and that's presuming there's only our universe.

Your contention, though, is that we're not alone, that something else has 'emerged', and that spontaneously - you seriously think the spontaneous (self-) creation of a highly advanced, immensely powerful intelligence is more probable than the possibility that somewhere in the universe there's another lifeform that evolved the same way that we demonstrably did?

O.

[jeremyp]

Nope what is in question is Dawkins assertion that only a highly evolved and complex being is necessary for the universe we have.

Is that an assertion he's made, or just one that you've decided he's made?

It's one Vlad made up. Richard Dawkins said that the creator of the Universe would need to be a complex being, which means it lacks explanatory power because you have to explain the existence of the complex being. He also said that evolution is the only down mechanism to get from simple to complex. Vlad has inferred from that that Dawkins thinks God evolved, but in fact, Dawkins does not exclude the alternate possibilities including that there is no god.

[Rhiannon]

Rhi,

According to Lovelock it was Dawkins who dissed Gaia early on and stopped his theory from being taken seriously when the damage could have better been averted/reversed.

RD critiqued it in The Extended Phenotype, after which the theory was significantly revised. That's a long way from "strangling" anything.

You might be right. I'm only repeating what I heard Lovelock say in an interview on R4.

[Rhiannon]

According to Lovelock it was Dawkins who dissed Gaia early on and stopped his theory from being taken seriously when the damage could have better been averted/reversed.

Having looked into it, the problem scientists seem to have with Lovelock is not his idea that bio-organisms have an effect on the biosphere, which isn't very contentious at all, but rather that he suggests this is down to some sort of collective subconscious deliberate intent - a collective subconscious intent that, to date, Lovelock has failed to provide any evidence for.

O.

Someone said to me that his stats come from using Gaia to come up with unreliable computer modelling as to what will happen, but I have no idea if that's right. My friend didn't rate it much.