BF2S Forums The Universe - A Topic for Debate

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Scorpion0x17 wrote:

I said that the results of chaotic system appear unpredictable.

are unpredictable

This was my point. It is impossible to take enough data to predict the system. Why you would call such a system orderly, I do not know. It's arranged in such a fashion only useful to God lol.

Just because we can not measure the order it does not mean it is not ordered.

We do not need to be able to measure the temperature at the core of the sun to know it's bloody hot in there.

In a sense you're just restating my point:

That chaotic system are not unpredictable, they only appear to be unpredictable.

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Scorpion0x17 wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

are unpredictable

This was my point. It is impossible to take enough data to predict the system. Why you would call such a system orderly, I do not know. It's arranged in such a fashion only useful to God lol.

Just because we can not measure the order it does not mean it is not ordered.

We do not need to be able to measure the temperature at the core of the sun to know it's bloody hot in there.

In a sense you're just restating my point:

That chaotic system are not unpredictable, they only appear to be unpredictable.

It is unpredictable. In no way could we ever predict a complex system with infinite accuracy. Period. Theoretically just does not count.

So what.

Just because we, the human race, can never predict a complex system with infinite accuracy, that doesn't stop, for example, the weather, or, imo, the Universe being chaotic.

Like I already said, just because we, the human race, can never measure the temperature at the core of the sun, it doesn't stop it having a very real temperature or that very real temperature being very really very hot.

What something is, or is not, is not defined by what we know.

Rather it is the other way round.

What we know about something is defined by what it is.

Last edited by Scorpion0x17 (2009-02-25 22:28:23)

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

What we know about something can only be defined by what we know, by definition. According to you, there is no way for faulty logic to exist, if what we "know" is only based on the truth of what something is.

The only way I can see you making this argument is if you very quickly follow it up with a "we know nothing" statement.

I did not say that we always get it right - we don't - we often get it wrong - and that's where faulty logic comes in - when we get it wrong.

But, if we assume that Universe is real and external, then everything we know about anything is based solely on our observation of said Universe.

We get it wrong because our senses are imperfect, not because Universe is not what it is (which is a logical impossibility).

As, I think, you said some posts ago - Universe is what it is - and what it is is what we base our understanding of it on.

But that does not automatically mean our understanding of it is in any way accurate.

Last edited by Scorpion0x17 (2009-02-25 22:50:36)