Order versus Chaos

[Unveiled Artist]

Rlly....monsanto and Dow have nooothiiiiing to do with it? Not even a teensy bit? Ever seen Burzyski the documentary about the doctor who found the cure to cancer? But had to go up against the fda and govt to keep curing it...very compelling stuff.

What???

 

[Cateau]

What???

I was stating this for the part that said cancer being natural.....not the rest....I just stopped there lol. Yeah, and in another documentary called the Gerson Therapy it goes into how the carcinogenics found in our foods and items cause cancer, here in CA it's been approved by state law to label everything that can give you cancer, some in foods and drinks (coffee) have an effect due to what happens in itself while others are just a risk from being produced themselves or on what they are produced in/from.

The labels are everywhere no one even cares lol it's like if I get it I get it cuz at this point it can be from anything, hamburgers have the label, restaurants have it if you eat inside, my sunglasses had that label lol, but yes it is also like hmmm so like why are they allowed to be sold to us if that's the case? Cuz Jessie J lied and it rlly is "all about the $$money, money, money."

Just like Monsanto and Dow destroying nature is allowed b/c of its revenues, so also Pharmaca makes dangerous medication (adverse reaction include but are not limited to....cancer, death, heart attack, diabetes, asthma, blah blah, blah....omg why r they making it, i'd rather keep my disease lol) in which the cons outweigh the pros, cure nothing only control it (arnt they in that industry to find cures? Well based on how much they persecute those that do cure anything, my guess is nope) every day it's something new with them but it does the same thing...nothing lol.

Organic foods have been shown to cure many ailments that doctors have told us they have none to, but now if you notice well even the farmers say it the a.g. industry has to "get in bed" with Monsanto to even grow anything at this rate so everything is gmo now, cows and chickens are on hormones (you can watch "from farm to fridge" for that, these r films you will only be willing to see once lol) ...everything is out of balance, especially our immune systems. Now they even came out with the first drone honey bees.....they r gonna take an already "endagered" like specie's job....its like, yup keep doing what your doing, you know where this is gonna land you. Obviously not jail....so hell lol.

 

[exchemist]

Rlly....monsanto and Dow have nooothiiiiing to do with it? Not even a teensy bit? Ever seen Burzyski the documentary about the doctor who found the cure to cancer? But had to go up against the fda and govt to keep curing it...very compelling stuff.

Sounds like another wacko conspiracy theory to me.

If someone had really found "a cure" for cancer, it is quite idiotic to suppose this would somehow have been suppressed.

 

[Cateau]

Sounds like another wacko conspiracy theory to me.

If someone had really found "a cure" for cancer, it is quite idiotic to suppose this would somehow have been suppressed.

Watch it then tell me otherwise, punk lol. He realized oncagenes were "turned off" in cancer patients so found a way to turn them back on resulting in clincal trials for his medication and curing the most lethal tumors and cancers, but only able to do this by court order in special cases that are sure deaths after trying and failing all other treatments.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I was stating this for the part that said cancer being natural.....not the rest....I just stopped there lol. Yeah, and in another documentary called the Gerson Therapy it goes into how the carcinogenics found in our foods and items cause cancer, here in CA it's been approved by state law to label everything that can give you cancer, some in foods and drinks (coffee) have an effect due to what happens in itself while others are just a risk from being produced themselves or on what they are produced in/from.

The labels are everywhere no one even cares lol it's like if I get it I get it cuz at this point it can be from anything, hamburgers have the label, restaurants have it if you eat inside, my sunglasses had that label lol, but yes it is also like hmmm so like why are they allowed to be sold to us if that's the case? Cuz Jessie J lied and it rlly is "all about the $$money, money, money."

Just like Monsanto and Dow destroying nature is allowed b/c of its revenues, so also Pharmaca makes dangerous medication (adverse reaction include but are not limited to....cancer, death, heart attack, diabetes, asthma, blah blah, blah....omg why r they making it, i'd rather keep my disease lol) in which the cons outweigh the pros, cure nothing only control it (arnt they in that industry to find cures? Well based on how much they persecute those that do cure anything, my guess is nope) every day it's something new with them but it does the same thing...nothing lol.

Organic foods have been shown to cure many ailments that doctors have told us they have none to, but now if you notice well even the farmers say it the a.g. industry has to "get in bed" with Monsanto to even grow anything at this rate so everything is gmo now, cows and chickens are on hormones...everything is out of balance, especially our immune systems. Now they even came out with the first drone honey bees.....they r gonna take an already "endagered" like specie's job....its like, yup keep doing what your doing, you know where this is gonna land you. Obviously not jail....so hell lol.

Got to read it again. Cancer is natural. Its one of many mechenisms of the body that natural reacts and create cancer cells either as a "result of" toxins, cigarrettes, etc or natural on its own.

Our bodies, once born, is in the state of decay. As such, illnesses are how the body natural reacts to internal or external stimuli that "affects" the body. The body does what it does naturally regardless if the cause is from our own genetics or something from outside intoxicating the body.

The body reacts to a said stimuli. Whether doctors control or cure doesnt exude the body does what it does in light of that illness or condition.

For example, I take medication for seizures. Seizures in themselves are natural. The body is made to cause nerve disruptions (produce less white blood cells etc), and so forth.

What doctors look for is how it "affects" me. Is it harm to to my health? Yes. I wouldnt be here without sugery.

The body isnt to blame. Its the affects doctord worry. I have s cancerous cist. Doctors said since its not affecting me, they feel uncomfortable doing surgery until something happens.

Its all natural. Natural doesnt mean order. Our body does what it does. It would be taking our body for granted if we expected it to act one way and it does another.

 

[exchemist]

Watch it then tell me otherwise, punk lol. He realized oncagenes were "turned off" in cancer patients so found a way to turn them back on resulting in clincal trials for his medication and curing the most lethal tumors and cancers, but only able to do this by court order in special cases that are sure deaths after trying and failing all other treatments.

Ballocks.

 

[Cateau]

Ballocks.

Fine... fear the truth, be blind all your life, love ur govt and pretend the devil doesn't exist lol. I'M OUT, peace.

 

[Cateau]

Got to read it again. Cancer is natural. Its one of many mechenisms of the body that natural reacts and create cancer cells either as a "result of" toxins, cigarrettes, etc or natural on its own.

Our bodies, once born, is in the state of decay. As such, illnesses are how the body natural reacts to internal or external stimuli that "affects" the body. The body does what it does naturally regardless if the cause is from our own genetics or something from outside intoxicating the body.

The body reacts to a said stimuli. Whether doctors control or cure doesnt exude the body does what it does in light of that illness or condition.

For example, I take medication for seizures. Seizures in themselves are natural. The body is made to cause nerve disruptions (produce less white blood cells etc), and so forth.

What doctors look for is how it "affects" me. Is it harm to to my health? Yes. I wouldnt be here without sugery.

The body isnt to blame. Its the affects doctord worry. I have s cancerous cist. Doctors said since its not affecting me, they feel uncomfortable doing surgery until something happens.

Its all natural. Natural doesnt mean order. Our body does what it does. It would be taking our body for granted if we expected it to act one way and it does another.

Right, I noted that part, as I said an example is coffee, but I really would h8 to say everything a documentary can.....well not that it matters but the doctor was going to be sentenced to life in prison lol, but his patients fought for him. Hope nothing serious becomes of ur cyst.

 

[dfnj]

Just like Monsanto and Dow destroying nature is allowed b/c of its revenues

Everyone must sacrifice to the Profit-God. It is this country's only one true religion.

 

[dfnj]

Chaos: When the present determines the future, but the approximate present does not approximately determine the future (Edward Lorenz).

That's what maths uses in chaos theory, which studies dynamic systems where very tiny differences in the starting position have gross effects on the outcome.

Is it what you mean by chaos? If not, what do you mean?

You and I will never agree on anything. We simply have different world views. I don't believe in blanket statements about math being a perfect representation of reality. Sure if you have God-like powers to make every possible measurement this way and that it can be represented with mathematics. I'm not denying that which is what you are arguing. What I am saying just because you can imagine everything in nature is mathematical doesn't me on a realistic level you can make every measurement. My original claim is the order we find in nature occurs under controlled conditions. I was wondering if in reality with all the external variables changing results, if we see more exceptions to the laws of physic than compliance. In reality, chaos is the more common experience. Why does this matter? Because people claim this so called order we see in the Universe is evidence for God. I don't believe there is such an order. The Universe is a messy place and it is not practical to take enough measurements and to do enough math to really capture what is going on. Unless of course, you have a very refined context with controlled experiments. To me this is like parallel lines. They are perfect in math. But do not exist in reality. Your idea nature can be perfectly represented with math only occurs in your imagination like parallel lines only occurs in math.

I really don't want to argue with you. I've seen from your past posts you believe your science is truth above all else. I'm not going to argue F = ma is not true with you. You are completely missing my point if you think I am saying F = ma is not true. I really don't care to hear your point of view. I just don't care to hear it because I know how close minded you are from your previous posts in other threads you participated in. You think you are always "right". I get it. You are always right.

 

[blü 2]

I don't believe in blanket statements about math being a perfect representation of reality.

I think those parts of maths used in reality are idealizations of reality, not perfect representations of it (though very handy much of the time).

But you asked me whether I believed in chaos, and I simply asked you in reply whether the definition of chaos which seems to me closest to physics is what you meant, and if not, what.

just because you can imagine everything in nature is mathematical doesn't me on a realistic level you can make every measurement.

I make no such claim. I do however point to the utility of maths in reality, which is a different thing.

My original claim is the order we find in nature occurs under controlled conditions.

Do you mean that this order is absent outside of controlled positions? Or would you agree that it's very likely present even when the reality we're dealing with is imperfectly described?

In support of that idea, I point to the advance of science precisely through analytical insights into what we're looking at, thus identifying elements within the jumble, and giving them satisfactory descriptions.

I was wondering if in reality with all the external variables changing results, if we see more exceptions to the laws of physic than compliance.

I don't know any examples of that. From the scientific view, surely, the trick is to keep identifying and analyzing the elements of the situation, so that as many as possible are sufficiently understood; and from the technical view, the trick is to find the minimum number of relevant elements that will still give us satisfactory control of the situation.

people claim this so called order we see in the Universe is evidence for God. I don't believe there is such an order.

I don't make such a claim, because I have no meaningful notion of what a real god, a god with objective existence, could be. (Imaginary gods, just as with superheroes, are no problem, of course.)

parallel lines. They are perfect in math. But do not exist in reality.

Yes, they're entirely conceptual, and concepts only exist in brains.

Your idea nature can be perfectly represented with math only occurs in your imagination like parallel lines only occurs in math.

I didn't say, and I don't think, nature can be perfectly represented by maths. The correspondence we aim for between our physics formula and nature can only be validated empirically, not mathematically,

I really don't want to argue with you. I've seen from your past posts you believe your science is truth above all else.

I think reasoned enquiry is the only reliable way to tackle the question, What's true in reality? and that scientific method is the branch of reasoned enquiry that deals with the physical sciences. Not only does it have a remarkable track record, but it has no rival. (If I'm mistaken in that, I'll be genuinely grateful if you can point out what that rival is.)

Which said, there are no absolutes in science. As science commentator and astronomer Brian Cox put it, a law of physics is a statement about physics that hasn't been, or hasn't yet been, falsified. And as I said previously, since science works by empiricism and induction, that must be true ─ all conclusions of science are tentative.

Meanwhile we can land rovers on Mars and talk to each other on the net, so something useful is going on.

 

[Cateau]

Everyone must sacrifice to the Profit-God. It is this country's only one true religion.

I'll let my fav superhero reply to the profit god...."whats one more body among foundations? Well, what are you waiting for?....Do It.... DO IT" *explodes* RIP, me: *cries.*

 

[sandy whitelinger]

The claim would be that we observe certain regularities in the way natural phenomena occur ─ that objects fall to earth, that they accelerate as they do so, that the rate of fall doesn't vary with the mass of the object, but varies with eg air resistance; and that for non-relativistic measurements Newton's

F = G (m1m2/r^2)​

fits our observations.

The claim would further be that these conclusions are the result of scientific method, hence derived by empiricism and induction hence are tentative, subject to any counterexample we may discover tomorrow or never discover.

What do you say is going on instead? That our observations are wrong, the product of ... what?

Surely the observation, 'Yes, that works' as we land a rover on Mars, has some persuasive value?

To say that there are no such regularities, eg that there is no economy of energy in the interactions of chemistry and biochemistry, so that RNA produces DNA only by a series of extraordinary coincidences, would defy common sense as well as experience, would it not?
No, they're more sophisticated than our primary experience, otherwise we, like the ancients, would still believe the earth was flat and the celestial bodies went round it.
While we still have kinds of scientific determinism, they're no longer clockwork, since our present understanding of QM includes what in terms of classical physics are truly random events, unable in principle to be described in terms of cause&effect, and only describable statistically.
Even the chaos is subject to observable regularities of behavior, which we can fashion into rules of physics.

All those realities just seem to be a mass hallucination.

 

[dfnj]

I think those parts of maths used in reality are idealizations of reality, not perfect representations of it (though very handy much of the time).

But you asked me whether I believed in chaos, and I simply asked you in reply whether the definition of chaos which seems to me closest to physics is what you meant, and if not, what.
I make no such claim. I do however point to the utility of maths in reality, which is a different thing.
Do you mean that this order is absent outside of controlled positions? Or would you agree that it's very likely present even when the reality we're dealing with is imperfectly described?

In support of that idea, I point to the advance of science precisely through analytical insights into what we're looking at, thus identifying elements within the jumble, and giving them satisfactory descriptions.
I don't know any examples of that. From the scientific view, surely, the trick is to keep identifying and analyzing the elements of the situation, so that as many as possible are sufficiently understood; and from the technical view, the trick is to find the minimum number of relevant elements that will still give us satisfactory control of the situation.
I don't make such a claim, because I have no meaningful notion of what a real god, a god with objective existence, could be. (Imaginary gods, just as with superheroes, are no problem, of course.)
Yes, they're entirely conceptual, and concepts only exist in brains.
I didn't say, and I don't think, nature can be perfectly represented by maths. The correspondence we aim for between our physics formula and nature can only be validated empirically, not mathematically,
I think reasoned enquiry is the only reliable way to tackle the question, What's true in reality? and that scientific method is the branch of reasoned enquiry that deals with the physical sciences. Not only does it have a remarkable track record, but it has no rival. (If I'm mistaken in that, I'll be genuinely grateful if you can point out what that rival is.)

Which said, there are no absolutes in science. As science commentator and astronomer Brian Cox put it, a law of physics is a statement about physics that hasn't been, or hasn't yet been, falsified. And as I said previously, since science works by empiricism and induction, that must be true ─ all conclusions of science are tentative.

Meanwhile we can land rovers on Mars and talk to each other on the net, so something useful is going on.

You always have to have the last word.

 

[Thief]

seems to me what makes the Universe so great and interesting is the chaos.

and I have considered.....the Void was perfect
altogether uniform in every manner
no heat....no cold
no light ...no shadow
no movement....no time
nothing......
........void

the first creation .....light....is an aberration
the first Pronouncement ....I AM!......shattered the perfection of silence

Chaos was a name for a god

 

[Thief]

btw.....chaos is now a study of science

 

[Audie]

It strikes me that the universe is mostly in a state of chaos and that somehow it occasionally manages to create order. All life on this planet is an example of an amazing degree of order. It remains to be seen how frequently throughout the universe life is created out of order. But it's fun trying to figure it out!

Does the sun seem chaotic to you?

 

[Audie]

What???

Not "what".

"Woo Woo". Say it.

 

[Audie]

Everyone must sacrifice to the Profit-God. It is this country's only one true religion.

Heartless greed is not good.
But profit?

W/0 profit there is no life.

 

[icehorse]

Does the sun seem chaotic to you?

You know I thought about that question before I made my post! I'd say that there is a continuum with entropy doom at one end (chaos), and life as we know it on the other (order). So the Sun is in between those two extremes, my guess is that it's closer to the chaos end, but I can't really back that up very well.

I will say that for a while now I've thought that it's ever so slightly plausible that stars have a very, very, very slow moving consciousness. They could actually be in communication with each other - fodder for a sci-fi story