which is a safe way of saying that noone knows why the particles involved act as they do, just that sometimes they conform to newtonian, and sometimes they do not...

Newtonian physics would fall more under the philosophy determinism than the philosophy put forth by chaos theory wouldn't it?

Let me quantify my statement then: "Textbooks used in public schools".

Is that better?

And to stay on topic: Intelligent design... chaos theory... philosophy... etc etc etc i agree with whatever that other dude said.

aww, c'mon... you can do better than that fr0g...

To answer my own question, and yours at the same time....

Newtonian physics does not apply in chaos theory, because Newtonian Theory is based on cause=effect. In chaos theory cause=any number of possible outcomes.

Do better than what?

hmmm....i came to this discussion a lil' late.....i have a book on the subject, well, religious philosophy actually, but this is discussed within said book....

anywho....i'd like to just bring up one issue if i may...

somewhere in this thread someone stated (i believe it was errant) that perhaps thought created existence.....

this very idea contradicts the very notion of "existence".....how can "something" CREATE existence?

existence cannot be created.....existence is......or better yet, it is infinite, eternal, ever-lasting, etc.......i'm sure you've heard me go on this rant before, but to suggest something, and labeling it as "non-existent" does nothing more than contradict itself, as it implies that even something "non-existent" exists as such......if thought created "existence," then surely thought must have existed....hence, it can't create what is already applied to it.....

HOWEVER, there is a very valid argument for the idea of "non-existent" things when concerning the physical realm.......for example, you before you were born.....but then this takes into account theories pertaining to "destiny/fate" and "time" and "physical vs' metaphysical".........

nonetheless, i have yet to see any argument justify the notion of "non-existence" in a philosophical manner (not to say there isn't one)....science on the otherhand is another argument altogether (and in my honest opinion, a flawed one)

anywho....the idea behind "intelligent design" i think is flawed.......it gives more credit to the "intelligent being" and not enough to "existence".......it also has problems concerning metaphysical and physical natures of things.....for example, as "thought" is considered to be a metaphysical nature (philosophically more so than science would state) where did it get the idea of the physical? and then this in turn could be argued all the way down to the a-priori and a-posteriori ideas as well as empiricism....

all in all, intelligent design....meh.....to speak bluntly, i find it to be nothing more than religious hocus-pocus

The hocus-pocus isn't limited to just religious sources. We homo sapiens have been developing creation myths, with some sort of built in grand design, since the first one of us asked "why"? And as far as I can tell, every creation story reaches a point at which the explanation walks on wobbly legs at best, and is pure bull pucky at its worst. Despite knowing this, humankind continues to do it in an effort to bring "understanding" to something that is for all intents and purposes not understandable by our puny intellects.

I suspect that, through dumb luck if for no other reason, we have got bits and pieces of "creation" correct. As to the "intelligent design" part, it's any bodies guess as to the truth of the matter. But I would have to say that not having the capacity to understand something does not necessarily negate its existance. Therefore, some sort of intelligent design may exist, and it is a worthwhile intellectual exercise to explore the possibilities.

Anyone who thinks evolution and intelligent design are mutually exclusive needs to be beaten with a quantum filament.

Science hasn't explained how the universe works. All it's done so far is show how mind-blowingly foolish and complex the universe is. Indeed, is there any situation we can truely 'rule out?'

If God exists, he's a stoner for sure.

first off, i apologize for leaving it as "religious hocus pocus" when i was trying to imply "religious" as being synonymous with "faith" in an illogical context......

but, the problem is, is not asking "why?" but instead why (no pun intended) the answer must be so complicated......Greeks made the creation theory far more simplistic than any religion stemming from the middle-east.......hell, even Buddhism is far more simplistic than Judaism.....so, in taking a "creation story" and building up on it is far more complex than answering "why"....a creation story takes into account a "how" and a "what" as well, and dives deeps into these answers.......which, for all philosophical purposes, it should do so, but somewhere along the way, the answer to "why" is replaced by the "creation story"

asking "why" is fine.....why can be answered simplistically.....as in my answer, as well as some theologians and other philosophers taking into account the idea behind "aestheticism"....

QUESTION: "why?"

ANSWER: "why not?"...."because".....etc.

now, i want to carefully explain that although i do not rightly agree with the justifications behind "intelligent design," doesn't mean that i don't accept the possibility of a "necessary being"........which, in the root of it's meaning, is that which "started" it all........whether or not said being is in anyway shape or form "intelligent" is highly debateable.....

That is a specious analogy... Life is a reiterating process... Reiterating processes, as can be seen by models based on reiteration in computers, tend toward complexity... Given the evolution of sufficiently complex neural net, intelligence emergence is an obvious possibility...

Science was never meant to explain that... One of the most terribly popular misconceptions among non scientists is that science was meant to explain nature... All science is, is a tool for validating or falisfying ideas... The early scientists like Occam and Newton tended to be devout Christians, and never for a second intended science to outmode religion...

If people choose to believe or not believe in God, it has nothing to do with science... I personally think that God's coat is on a very shaky nail these days, because a) the bible is a poorly written morass of self contradiction, out and out falshoods and oxymorons, and b) unfortunately, science is being turned into a psuedo religion... Just look at the scientologists website... Scary stuff... Never trust any philosopher who prozyletizes...

Well then what are the ideas for?

What ideas are for is a question science cannot answer... That would be more the remit of a philospher... Science is a tool used to test ideas to see if they are valid or not...

and philosophy doesn't do that?

you are aware that philosophy shares the same principles as science.....testing theories, providing justifications, ensuring a theory is both sound and valid......science does the exact same thing, but limits itself to arbitrary systems of measurement.....like mathematics........even then, analytical philosophy itself may use an arbitrary system of measurement (symbolic logic).....

but, you're right, philosophy is more akin to "accepting" ideas more-so than science....

for example:

IF all men are mortal, THEN all mortals are men:

although this is a sound argument, it isn't valid.....for other creatures are mortal as well....

IF all men exist, and existence is forever, THEN all men are forever

this is a valid argument, but obviously, it isn't very sound.....

IF all men are mortal, and Socrates is a man, THEN Socrates is mortal

this is both sound and valid....


science mainly concerns itself with the latter....if a theory falls into the prior, science usually abondons it.....whereas philosophy will concern itself with it and think about it, but for the most part philosophy wouldn't say that such "ideas" are fully justified

but, science too finds itself amidst "ideas".....for example, Gamma-Ray Bursts.......for decades science had a problem pertaining to the "idea" behind Gamma-Rays because it conflicted with Einstein's logic of E=MC^2.......an object that blows up in another galaxy, sending out rays, which come into our galaxy? this was a grave problem for Einstein's theory....but science had to answer it, and they did, with the theory that Gamma-Rays don't go in every direction like they thought, but instead do a jet-stream effect (like a black hole does).....

but the point is, both science and philosophy are tools used to test ideas to see if they are BOTH sound and valid..........but philosophy will, at times, concern itself with one or the other, whereas science merely seeks both validity and soundness......

Philosophy is a tool to create ideas, not to test them... Cogito Ergo sum est Pluralitas non neccesitate

Einsteins threory is perfectly in tune with the idea that curved spacetime can bias the future of a gamma ray in a particular direction... As a matter of fact, general relativity hinges on that principle...

look, i don't shit about science really, i just am tellin' you what i saw on TLC......if Einstein's theory was so in tune, then why did gamma-rays bother scientists so?

but all i was trying to point out is that philosophy and science are "sisters"....they follow the same principles.....both try to justify things....science just limits itself to the physical world and its arbitrary systems