What is the truth behind The Secret Life of Chaos?

[SELFMADE]

If you haven't watched it, can be found here:



I watched the second time today and it was absolutely astonishing, didn't quite "get it" the first time. It pretty much explains how life originates. I don't think anything can be added to what the program wanted to convey.

I would like to hear some educated opinions on this piece. Is everything the host tells true? Are there shortcomings to the theories that he presents? What is the current status of chaos and other relevant theories? What the are latest news?

 

[cronxeh]

I love emergence theory, complex dynamical systems, chaos theory, etc. Very interesting stuff! Look into networks, it lays down the foundation for emergence.

By the way, if you look at Part 2 of this video, you will see what Alan Turing did - he basically (to me) proved the nonexistence of god. Its hilariously pathetic to argue that evolution is not real.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

By the way, if you look at Part 2 of this video, you will see what Alan Turing did - he basically (to me) proved the nonexistence of god.

That isn't possible. One can only show that processes are identified that apparently eliminate the need for a God in order to explain our existence. One can never prove a universal negative.

Its hilariously pathetic to argue that evolution is not real.

There is always the omnipotent trickster argument. But that is a philosophical argument that [by assumption] makes moot the scientific argument. One the flip side, many creationists deny that the science is correct within its domain, which is quite silly.

Also, the notions of evolution and God and not mutually exclusive.

 

[cronxeh]

That isn't possible. One can only show that processes are identified that apparently eliminate the need for a God in order to explain our existence.



There is always the omnipotent trickster argument. But that is a philosophical argument that [by assumption] makes moot the scientific argument. One the flip side, many creationists deny that the science is correct within its domain, which is quite silly.

Na ah. Science is the strong induction that trumps philosophy in this aspect. Simply put, if god has no meaning, no purpose, then it doesn't exist. There is no point of giving god purpose if he has none. Therefore, to me at the very least, god is a human construct, a weak human's mind construct. And its not real. Its just an escape function that transfers our fears into our hopes. Its a pathetic attempt to give ourselves meaning in an otherwise meaningless existence.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Na ah. Science is the strong induction that trumps philosophy in this aspect. Simply put, if god has no meaning, no purpose, then it doesn't exist. There is no point of giving god purpose if he has none. Therefore, to me at the very least, god is a human construct, a weak human's mind construct. And its not real. Its just an escape function that transfers our fears into our hopes. Its a pathetic attempt to give ourselves meaning in an otherwise meaningless existence.

Sorry but that is absolute rubbish. You are only citing the reasons why you personally don't believe. I gave you the correct answer: You can never prove a universal negative.

This is basic logic.

 

[cronxeh]

Sorry but that is absolute rubbish. I gave you the correct answer: You can never prove a universal negative.

This is basic logic.

You, sir, do realize that God is a human construct? Surely, you must at least admit that there is no single definition of 'god' accepted by all humans. So what is this 'god' you speak of?

My argument is that emergence is the only possibility for what you may refer to as 'god', but not an entity that is self-aware. If we agree, then we are at steady-state for the definition of god, if not then you are wrong.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

You, sir, do realize that God is a human construct?

That is an assumption. You cannot prove it.

Surely, you must at least admit that there is no single definition of 'god' accepted by all humans. So what is this 'god' you speak of?

I didn't pick. I don't need to. I cited only the quality of omnipotence.

My argument is that emergence is the only possibility for what you may refer to as 'god', but not an entity that is self-aware. If we agree, then we are at steady-state for the definition of god, if not then you are wrong.

None of this excludes the potential existence of a God.

I'm not debating this, I'm telling you the correct answer. Note that it would be a violation of the forum rules and case of misinformation for you to continue in this manner.

I'm not saying a God does exist, only that it is a logical impossibility to prove that one doesn't.

 

[alt]

You, sir, do realize that God is a human construct? Surely, you must at least admit that there is no single definition of 'god' accepted by all humans. So what is this 'god' you speak of?

My argument is that emergence is the only possibility for what you may refer to as 'god', but not an entity that is self-aware. If we agree, then we are at steady-state for the definition of god, if not then you are wrong.

You, sir, do realize that God is a human construct?

As is everything else that we know and believe - abstracted using our human minds and instruments, therefore, also human construct.

 

[ƒ(x)]

Looks like cronexh is our resident evangelical atheist.

 

[chaoseverlasting]

Are you sure that God is a human construct? Or just a name that we've decided to give something beyond our understanding that would still exist if we didn't acknowledge its (his?) presence?

What is in a name? A rose would smell just as sweet ...

 

[jobyts]

The non existence of god is not provable, as Ivan mentioned. God is/is not a human construct must be provable.

 

[chaoseverlasting]

The non existence of god is not provable, as Ivan mentioned. God is/is not a human construct must be provable.

How? What if the God is beyond your understanding? Any 'construct' is an attempt to define something that you do not understand in the first place. Its like trying to define a sphere using only one dimension.

What if God exists? Whether you do or do not use a construct to define him, has no bearing on the existence of God.

God is not a human construct. Any attempt to define God is a human construct. The only thing that you can really say is that you do not know.

 

[rethunk]

Yes. It was a good introduction to Chaos theory - and the depth of the ideas do take a bit of getting used to.

I first watched it on the BBC - it must be repeated or on another network, as that was some months ago - I had a populist book on chaos (I think tey even mention it in the programme) when I was about 14 - it's a really mind-blower!

A would suggest that the complete application of Chaos maths is only just starting to have been felt through the wider world so far...

If you haven't watched it, can be found here:
I watched the second time today and it was absolutely astonishing, didn't quite "get it" the first time. It pretty much explains how life originates. I don't think anything can be added to what the program wanted to convey.

I would like to hear some educated opinions on this piece. Is everything the host tells true? Are there shortcomings to the theories that he presents? What is the current status of chaos and other relevant theories? What the are latest news?