Originally posted by G. Cooper:
Victoria stated: “The fact that the earth's weather is a non-linear, driven, dissipative system would mean that such small perturbations would probably be damped out too quickly to have the effect that is ascribed to it.”
Yes, that looks like an accurate way to state what should be obvious. It is, however, not how I think it was represented by Cosmos, where a real life butterfly somewhere could be seen as causal to a storm in Maine.
I just read your more recent post (#10) and I’m curious if you think a causal view of the Butterfly Effect is something adopted, or adoptable, by the scientism world?
[The Tyson link was interesting and would be worth discussing in the forum section.]
Re your comments on my #10:
Ah, no, I was referring to things I've seen and heard atheists say about the implications of chaos for our Biblical worldview of God's orderly universe, namely that chaotic systems "prove that this view is incorrect".
The math and physics of non-linear dynamical systems is superb science. In my opinion, it shows just how wise God is to be able to design the properties and dynamics of space-time, and particles and fields ( or whatever it is that is really
at the foundation of His creation) to display such a marvelous scale-dependent behaviour, and that it should be described in such beautiful and elegant mathematics and simple unifying concepts (such as the idea that the path a dynamical system follows in phase space follows from finding the extrema of a functional integral - Hamilton's Principle, Lagrangians and all that came from those insights, which Newton made possible in the first place).
I suspect that the person who said this (I think it was in a Biologos Daily Blog post comment) did not really understand non-linear dynamical systems nor what a robust Biblical doctrine of an orderly Creation really implies.
When your audience does not understand the real science, and you don't take the time to explain it to them, then you can tell them that the science implies whatever worldview conclusions you like and get away with it. Dawkins and Krauss try to get away with this sort of thing all the time - my concern is that these shows, as interesting as they are, can be used as a medium to impart the worldview of ScienceTM
( aka Scientism) to an audience incapable of critically understanding the material. Terry mentioned in one of his posts that he long ago learned to ignore the Scientism of such people - that's fine for us, being both trained scientists and thinking Christians (and thus with a vested interest in deep philosophical thought), but what of the audience for which none of those are true?
Last edited Saturday, June 7, 2014