Precision in Nature: Evidence of God or Accidents?

Philosophy Forums Science, Technology, and Math
1

[size=110]ALTER2EGO -to- EVERYONE:

For the average person, precision indicates that an intelligent person guided the outcome. According to Webster’s New World College Dictionary, the word “precision” is defined as follows:

“the quality of being precise; exactness, accuracy”

The reverse of precision is imprecision/inaccuracy/inexactness, which is always the result of an accident or a spontaneous event that happens by chance with no one guiding the outcome. Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary defines an accident as:

“a nonessential event that HAPPENS BY CHANCE and has undesirable or unfortunate results.” (Source: Websters New Collegiate Dictionary)

Notice that an accident, by definition, is something unplanned aka it “happened by chance.” Notice the similarity of the definition for “spontaneous” (as in “spontaneous event”).

DEFINITION OF “SPONTANEOUS”:
“Spontaneous means unplanned or done on impulse.”
yourdictionary.com/spontaneous

AGRUMENT #1 FOR AN INTELLIGENT CREATOR:

Scientific evidence shows there is extreme precision in everything around us in the natural world. This precision renders the evolution theory and Big Bang theory mere fiction, because both theories rely on accidents or spontaneous events. Precision leaves no room for error or for accidental events. Rather, precision requires deliberation.

Take, for example, the first 60 elements that were discovered on the Periodic Table of the Elements of planet earth. Some of those 60 elements are gases and are therefore invisible to the human eye. The atoms–from which the Earth’s elements are made–are specifically related to one another. In turn, the elements–e.g. arsenic, bismuth, chromium, gold, krypton–reflect a distinct, natural numeral order based upon the structure of their atoms. This is a proven LAW.

The precision in the order of the elements made it possible for scientists such as Mendeleyev, Ramsey, Moseley, and Bohr to theorize the existence of unknown elements and their characteristics. These elements were later discovered, just as predicted. Because of the distinct numerical order of the elements, the word LAW is applied to the Periodic Table of the Elements. (Sources: (1) The McGraw-Hill Encyclopedia of Science & Technology, (2) “Periodic Law,” from Encyclopdia Britannica, Vol. VII, p. 878, copyright 1978, (3) The Hutchinson Dictionary of Scientific Biography)

SIDE NOTE: Laws found in nature, as defined by Webster’s New World Dictionary, are:

“a sequence of events that have been observed to occur with UNVARYING UNIFORMITY under the same conditions.”

QUESTIONS FOR DISCUSSION:
1. Were it not for the precise relationship among the first 60 discovered elements on the Periodic Table, would scientists have been able to accurately predict the existence of forms of matter that at the time were unknown?

2. Could the precise law within the first 60 discovered elements (on the Periodic Table) have resulted by chance aka spontaneously aka by accident? Or is this evidence for the existence an intelligent Designer/God who guided the outcome?

3. Evolution and Big Bang theories both rely upon things happening by chance aka at random. If evolution or Big Bang were credible explanations for the existence of life on earth or the existence of millions of planets in the heavens, how do either theory account for the Periodic Table of the Elements of planet earth in which the first 60 discovered elements are so precise, and so interrelated with one another, that the Periodic Table has been assigned the word “LAW”?[/size]

“That people may know that you, whose name is Jehovah, you alone are the Most High over all the earth.” (Psalms 83:18)

2

I have to say that you did an excellent job of formatting and defining your words, although you seem to have left out the most critical words in your argument; “intelligent”, “Designer/God”, “guiding”.

Dictionary definitions probably won’t help much with those words on a philosophy site (where the meanings of things are more deeply examined). So before I consider assessing the validity of your reasoning, I would like to see what you personally mean by those words. Given the common usage of those words (very different than my own), I can see a hole in the presented argument.

“Evolution is merely God rolling over.”

3

Wrong already. “Accuracy” and “exactness” are instrumental; they imply intent. If it’s argued that there’s accuracy or exactness in nature when trying to establish a designer, then this is begging the question.

If no conscious agent is involved with a process then there’s no “accuracy” or “inaccuracy,” because there’s no criteria for for what constitutes these qualities. The accuracy of a process is relative to its aim or purpose. Trying to remove qualities such as accuracy or precision from a purposeful context is incoherent.

Of course, none of this means that there can’t be structure, patterns, complexity, order etc. in a purposeless or aimless process.

AGRUMENT #1 FOR AN INTELLIGENT CREATOR:

Begging the question again. Scientific inquiry reflects order, not precision. Precision presupposes an aim.
Furthermore, evolution is guided by natural selection and nucleosynthesis by natural law (not “accident”).

We ordered those elements. Clamber about it all you want, but the fact that elements have subtle variations in, say, their number of valence electrons, and that we can organize them onto a table according to those variations doesn’t imply design. Patterns can emerge on their own (through e.g. natural filters, behavioral regularities etc.). Indeed, if this wasn’t the case, if any instance of order must have a design, then we would have to suppose that God must have been designed as well (as the old worn out argument goes: Who created God?).

There isn’t a precise relationship among periodic elements. There’s a nuanced or subtle relationship, but not a precise, accurate, exact or whatever other agency-assuming attribute you’d like to ascribe them.
If elements had wildly different values, such that we could not organize them, then no, there would be no predictive power.

Once again, I reject the premise of precision.
It could certainly be the case that they emerged that way under the guidance of natural regularities (e.g. Octet Rule). Occam’s Razor dictates that we disregard such a superfluous and question-begging ‘explanation.’

Wrong and wrong.
Evolution is a non-random process guided by natural selection and the preceding conditions of the big bang are still wholly unknown.
Aside from that, evolution doesn’t account for the existence of life (that’s abiogenesis), or the periodic table, because those are both outside of it’s purview of inquiry. The big bang and cosmology account for the creation and arrangement of atomic nuclei to create different elements, some of which react with each other (not all of them, though; noble gases are almost completely unreactive - not quite as “interrelated” as you might presume). Nature suffices to explain the referenced phenomena, and no amount of misleading terminology will require us to invoke an unnecessary and inexplicable deity into the picture which would only serve to further obfuscate things.

“That people may know that you, whose name is Jehovah, you alone are the Most High over all the earth.” (Psalms 83:18)
[/quote]

4

[size=120]ALTER2EGO -to- JAMES S SAINT:

The dictionary definitions speak for themselves. If you do not wish to accept them so that you can play the game of semantics, be my guest. Just do not hold your breath waiting for me to play the semantics game with you. I have other fish to fry.

I am now waiting for you or any skeptic to provide me with at least one example of precision among man-made creations that REPEATEDLY occurs by accident or spontaneously. Can you do that?[/size]

“That people may know that you, whose name is Jehovah, you alone are the Most High over all the earth.” (Psalms 83:18)

5

[size=120]JAMES S SAINT -to- ALTER2EGO:

I was quite willing to accept whatever definitions you gave. If you do not wish to give them so that you can play the game of semantics, be my guest. Just do not hold your breath waiting for me to play the semantics game with you. I have other fish to fry.
[/size]

6

[size=120]ALTER2EGO -to- JAMES S SAINT:

Really? I guess that explains why you informed me previously that “Dictionary definitions probably won’t help much with those word,” after which you asked me to explain what I “personally mean by those words,” thereby indicating you do not think much of the definitions in my OP, with the result that you “can see a hole in the presented argument”.

You have a very strange way of indicating you accepted the definitions in my OP. [/size]

“That people may know that you, whose name is Jehovah, you alone are the Most High over all the earth.” (Psalms 83:18)

7

Those particular words.

But obviously you can’t defend yourself else you wouldn’t be trying to start a fight.

8

The world is not precise or accurate:

from first principles:

  1. The three body problem has no analytical and closed solution, only approximations, this really means that the entire project of science as such is essentially failed, doomed, has hit a wall, will never again recover from this blow. This means that no matter how much you study, experiment, devise theories, no matter how close you think you reach the generalized truth, it will always be very relative, fragile and always an approximation, a guess, the true nature of the world is chaos, no rules, oblivion, infinite mystery, no discernible patterns, a joke on logical minds, a chess game against god where you will always lose.

  2. The most precise physical theory, Quantum Electrodynamics is based on Quantum Mechanics: a probability theory, this also signals the end of logic and science, the end of determinism, Einstein could not believe it therefore he declared that “God doesn’t play dice” but deep inside, he knew that this marked the end of the entire project of science, of a logical world, now the world had events with no causes, now everything went, now the world was no longer deterministic, it was a ghost, a make believe, utterly incredible to behold, but such it is: and ironically the most precise theory of science is based on the random, probability, wild choice, a lucky number, no cause and effect anymore, the end of science. And with the end of a logical world, came the end of any idea of a logical “designer” of the world, aka GOD…

IN general:

  1. Look around you, everything you see is casual, everything is a random combination, the group of pebbles on the street, the design of mountains, ocean waves, etc. Could you predict the exact design of a mountain from first principles ? can you predict the exact form of an ocean wave from first principles ? or a cloud ? etc. So therefore the world is chaotic, random, a wild guess, it is not precise, nay, the exact opposite, ever more incredibly random, etc. (don’t even get me started on any “social sciences”, or “economy” etc, or “medicine” or “biology” etc. in fact the things most important for us are the things least predictable, can never be predicted, etc).

  2. Look at how hard supercomputers are trying to model simple things like Protein Folding: even with computers executing a trillion calculations per second, they can’t really predict these things any farther than a given limit: and the very fact that you need numerical methods and trillions of calculations is a declaration of defeat on behalf of science, of mathematics, of predictability, is essentially saying "we will never be able to calculate simple protein foldings, nature is too “hard”, but just give us cash so as to create larger and larger computers and faster computers and maybe someday… those differential equations don’t have “exact solutions”.

Actually I have reached a conclusion that the laws of physics of our universe were simply a wild chance guess of relationships that popped out of nowhere, just like a sheet of glass cracks in the most unpredictable way, so the laws of physics, (what is left of the approximations of things that look like laws of physics) where a totally random choice, the metaphysical basis of reality is undetermined, random, completely disjoint, actually these laws of “our universe” are an example of some laws somewhat weakly connected to each other, therefore they fooled us into believing that they were real, but most universes that pop up out of nowhere have even stranger more chaotic laws, and some may have extremely precise laws, etc. all a wild guess, a random number, a wild chance…

Now science is at the end of the road, the only road we have left is to change the way our brain and mind is designed and observes and experiences the world: this is the future of science, a never ending stream and array of new Observing processors on the top of our body, all connected wildy differently, all seeing new universes, etc.

9

Hold! What you are doing to us is wrong! Why do you do this thing?

10

Incorrect.
Just because “modern physics” doesn’t know how to do something, doesn’t make it impossible.

“The most precise physical theory”, and yet imprecise and incorrect. QED.

The universe does not care what you happen to know about it. The fact that you cannot predict it merely means that you don’t know enough. And you really should consider whether you really need to.

Well, that wouldn’t be the first time you were wrong.

…has only begun.

11

this brings up an interesting discussion/argument…
there seems to be intelligent design in evolution…
Darwin used the word apparent design…
the problem of using the word intelligent implies a being …
we do not know enough about evolution to form any conclusions about a god…

12

also the origin of the universe and the origin of life on earth are unknowns for now…

13

You got that one right.
And here you always talk about how naive you are… hmph.

14

nameta9 wrote:Now science is at the end of the road

…has only begun.

hey “saint” —
Explain.

Will we discover something as big as electricity again ? will we discover something as game changing as Quantum Mechanics ? Relativity ? Maxwells Equations ? and all of the technology ? jet planes, atomic energy, microprocessors, space flight ? etc. etc.

Maybe you believe in Nanotechnology and tiny machines building up the world ? or maybe genetic engineering applications ? Quantum Computers running an infinite number of instructions per second creating reality deeper than reality ? Fusion Energy creating infinite energy from water and air ?

Are we at the beginning of “applications” (at which point my modified minds could be an application of science and hence I can agree that we have only begun, nay, we can’t even begin since the number of combinations of new minds is so large that we can never even begin to explore 10^10000 different minds and lives.) or at the beginning of “First Principles” like Calculus, Relativity, Theory of Evolution ?

And you think there can be thousands of new theories, game changing ideas and breakthroughs from here to the year 100,000 ?

The latest real physics theory is the Standard Model "finalized in the mid-1970s ", no newer real theories appeared since…

Explain yourself, or are you just answering with one liners ?

I think that the most optimistic approximation is that we are 70 % through with real discovering and probably applications of any real value…(with an invariant “present state” brain), just look at music, from 1600 to 2000: 400 years created probably 70 % of all possible music and ideas, no really pretty songs appeared yet in the years 2000, of course we have all kinds of electronic music and fusion jazz and what not, but most pretty songs have be made and are over and done with (like burt bacharachs - look of love, or songs like moon river, or have yourself a merry little christmas (listen to the james taylor cover)), etc.

the tardy boy

15

Check out:

viewtopic.php?f=4&t=184997

Confusion on Progress…

Be careful when talking about and considering the ideas such as “We are going forward”, “science is progressing”, “we are increasing our knowledge”, “technology is going forward”, etc.

This should all be broken down into three fundamental segments:

  1. New First Principles, new fundamental discoveries, new fundamental ideas, new “Paradigm changes” and these are those great fundamental discoveries and experiments and formulas that changed the way the world is and how we apply our knowledge to it such as Newton and Calculus and Mechanics, Maxwell’s equations and Electromagnetism, The theory of Evolution, and Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, DNA and Genetic Engeneering and many other real fundamental discoveries (oil discovered and applied), theories and ideas that become solid First Principles;

  2. New Applications of first principles and new applications of technological discoveries: new first principles often imply new applications and new possibilities, new technologies, etc such as the Steam Engine and the railroad, Electricity and all of what can be done with electricity, the Engine, Automobiles, Airplanes, Jet Planes, Atomic Energy and Atom Bombs, Computers and then Microprocessors and then Personal Computers and then the Internet, reinforced concrete and skyscrapers and elevators etc .

  3. The multiplication of instances, examples of production of items that then become standard but are just variations on a theme: so you have a billion cars produced in the 20th century and they differ by design and incremental perfections of parts of it, suspension systems, engines, consumption, speed, etc, but in the end they are all just the constant multiplication of new examples of a fundamental old Application that appeared a hundred years ago: and so it is with airplanes then jets then rockets, and so it is with telephones and computers etc.

A 150 years ago buildings having more than 4 floors where rare: but with reinforced concrete and then elevators the world has become full of skyscrapers and multifloored buildings of all kinds, from 5 floors to 100 floors etc, but this is an example of constantly applying the same application over and over again as a variation on a theme, same with computers and smartphones: they just contain a telephone and camera in one box, but the telephone and camera are all old applications now, etc.

The hardest area to discern between applications and principles is biology - medicine - drugs: this area is both applications of knowledge and sometimes first principles at the same time, but often hard to judge and each patient has a different reaction and so forth: health care and medicine is a great arena for all of those who want to make believe they made great new discoveries, very hard to distinguish, hard to verify and so forth (that is why drugs have hundreds of counter problems and companies want to protect themselves, all drugs seem to be risky and can cause death) this is because medicine, biology, health care is not an exact science in many cases.

Music also had all of its first principles established in the last 400 years: Music is a science in that it is a manipulation of undetermined entities, of undefined entities according to patterns imposed, it is a manipulation of an abstract world (and newly designed minds could invert this and make solid reality manipulable like music and music become a solid reality, but this only with incredible new minds that work differently), it is a manipulation of reality according to technologies etc.

But just as the electric guitar produced an incredible new quantity of new music from 1950 on, the mellotron and computer music did not have the same effect, but in any case it is all electronics applied to music.

So most people think that new examples of old things, new instances of old things are progress, are a sign of science going forward. It is not, it is a sign of production, industrial production and the never ending production of new examples of mostly old items that increases, nothing fundamentally new. 20 new car models that will come out in the next few years and millions of new cars produced, 10 new smartphone examples in the next few years, 10 new techno bands or heavy metal bands that will appear in the next few years, 10 new skyscrapers and a 100 new 5 or 6 floor buildings that will appear in the next few years: so yes the application of old principles can increase forever, the combinations of how to design old applications is never ending, but nothing really game changing or new is being created, nothing that can really surpirse you.

So the future of sceince is mostly 1) very few really new First Principles can be discovered, most have been made, maybe a handful are left, 2) a few new applications like something as new as the PC was and the Internet was when it came out, or the railroad, or car or jet, even here I can’t imagine many 3) a never ending amount of “new” applications in the form of new instances of old applications, thousands of new car designs, buildings, rockets, drugs and medicine and body enhancers and what not, but these are all multiplying the number of old stabilized items, not really new items and not really meaing that “we are going forward”, nay, this is the arena of political fights that will increase since everyone wants to apply the stabilized technology in one way or another (solar or nuclear ?) etc.

This also implies a decrease in the amount of work needed: a building needs a certain number of workers and once built can last a 100 years, a car needs a certain number of workers but lasts 10 years, a smartphone can be eventually produced by an automatic factory and may need very few workers, so we end up needing less and less work also. A building or car has many other subsytems needed, the car an engine, a window, a seat, etc. but a smartphone has only a few Integrated circuits, end of story, hence very little work needed or generated to produce the item.

And then we will start to manipluate the Mind Brain and the world will never be the same again, the Instant Singularities, new universes, the last and greatest discovery is the end of all reality and discovery and the entrance into a trillion new worlds where yes, there will be trillions of new First Principles and applications beyond anything you can behold…

turd

16

The actual first principle(s) never change and never will.

17

There are an infinite number of First Principles and No First principles at the same time. It depends on the “Event Set” the Observer is living in: our Man Brain and consequently our civilization has mostly expired the possible Event Set we can interact through, as the models of the world, the knowledge, the theory and the intentionality of use we perform depends on the accumulation of events, experiences, interactions, a fixed set of repetitive interactions and patterns crystallized in our mind and behavior and reinforced through social consensus based in the many multiplying instances of similar Man brains confirming themselves and talking to themselves essentially even though they have the illusion of talking to other separate and different man brains (people talking to each other are really simply talking to themselves and one format of the world through one fixed example of a Man Brain).

Now a solid is a set of particles where nothing is happening, you need an event, energy, you need them to move around and collide with each other, you need interactions to then create events and then memorize the events and order them logically according to any models the man brain is designed to decode. But you need temperature, an energy, something moving compared to everything frozen, etc. That is why we explore higher and higher energies in particle physics, to discover new events, interactions, new possible patterns and so forth, the beam of energy as the temperature set creating new events, else all would be frozen and not produce any interactions.

But our Event Set is now mostly expired, known, most patterns decoded, and in fact science has to reach out to farther and farther limbos to try to discover new things, high energy beams, black holes, extreme low temperatures, all things at the limits and so forth, remote, complex, not everyday things. Because our event set is expired: but event sets are arbitrary, events and interactions can be any at all, can be organized in any way at all, any event can be designed, is a decision point, any ordering of arbitrary events in Processors, new minds can generate new First Principles and worlds, hence events, interactions as point like signals and their accumulation construct the world, but can construct any arbitrary world according to what events and signals are chosen, how the Processor decodes them and interacts and what the new Event Set is: since these can be any at all, an infinite amount of new Event Sets meaning interaction sets, experience sets, and hence Universe with New Laws of Physics, etc.

the tard

18

As in:

Invent the new world with new events…

from

instantsingularity1.blogspot.it/ … vents.html

19

What “first principle” specified that conclusion?
Whatever it was, it was false.
Why do you think that first principles are infinite in number?

20

Infinite number of new Processors interacting with new Event Sets and hence Experience Sets and hence discovering Infinite number of “New Laws of Physics”, hence Infinite Number of First Principles …

From:

viewtopic.php?f=4&t=177834

Is Reality Physics - Mathematics ?

The unreasonable precision with which mathematics describes reality has always puzzled physicists. The reason is most likely because the reality described is not really a reality and is much more so a Technology: an invention, mostly a machine, as most of those equations and interactions and experiments and laws have been furnished by how machines and devices interact with some kind of detached reality, a reality that is in essence pretty far away from nature, if with nature you mean the pure random blind forces operating under nature like inside stars (plasmas), the forces modeling the earth (earthquakes, mountain formation), the weather and most of the random natural events that occur like ocean waves and their exact form and design (can you predict them with mathematical precision ?). Of course we know and can apply mathematics to all of such, we know the general forces and such, but the precision is no longer “unreasonable”.

So what scientists do is confuse technology with nature, confuse a mathematical model and description and design of technological machines with nature, as if the technology is nature: but it is not so, technology is a very specifically configured slab of matter that closely follows and abides to mental, linguistic and especially mathematical models: what came first the technological machine and interaction or the mental mathematical model ? Mostly the other way around, the mental mathematical models influenced what kinds of contraptions we would design according to clear cut needs and functions according to how we interact with reality.

SO in essence, there is no “unreasonable precision” of mathematics to reality, but only a mostly reasonable precision of mathematics to machines that interact with reality and confuses us into thinking that they are reality. Like a particle accelerator: are they simply studying an engineered device or really studying the laws of physics ?

Matter is set up so as to express mathematical relationships, so as to emphasize mathematical relationships. Our mathematical models are more than anything mostly machines, mental models of machines that are providing us a function and as such easily lend themselves to models and especially mathematical models. Since the functions and operations the machines must provide have been defined and created within a mental model of reality through language, they already, from the outset have properties that imply models and eventually mathematical, precision models, models where you can apply equations and predictions and perfect them accordingly, but because the function is clearly defined and clearly delimited by language and the model and then mathematical models further delimit and perfect them: and then machines are designed and constructed and experimented within a very controlled and predictable environment, no free wills opposing their forces to what the machines must do, no random forces and quirk details messing up models like what happens in most of real natural systems and not modelized and forced systems carving their function out of reality, by force.

At what point does a technology become a science ? at what point do we confuse a technology with science ? When did computer become “Computer Science” so to say, and is it a Natural Science ? If so then why isn’t the game of Chess also simply a Natural Science ? and then why not Soccer or American Football a science ? a real science ? In this respect, we are not the “View from Nowhere” that science supposes it has, we are always the view from somewhere, from someplace, from some cultural or experience reference system, from some language construct, thought construct and memory organization of knowledge implied by a culture, civilization, tribe.

The discrepancies: the three body problem has no analytical solution (no precise solution in mathematical terms), the differential equations describing mathematical physics have very rarely precise, closed form analytical solutions, initial conditions must be imposed but are always iffy, random, not sure and not precise, non linearities abound, chaotic systems discovered, the butterfly effect ? and mostly look around you, can you give me the equation and precise solution that determined a given design of a given mountain ? can you precisely predict the exact shape of the next waveform of an ocean wave ? can you tell me exactly where the next raindrop will fall ? (but then again nature operates by simply yes and no and some intermediate state, it doesn’t need precision, it doesn’t care about precision, nature is very approximate, likes to make rough approximations like it will rain today or it will not, it doesn’t even know or have within itself the precise capability to know, care or even imagine where the exact next raindrop will fall, it knows it only after the fact, nay, not even after the fact, not even history is true, nay, it doesn’t and will never know, nothing will ever know, not even knowing itself knows…). These are all the walls of the reference system science is boxed up in, its perfect mathematical viewpoint breaks down as soon as you exit its reference system: in that case only the interaction and measurement and observation gives you some information, but information that rarely can be built upon to create a prediction as in : Thought is the Sickness, Measurements and Observations are the Cure.

When I saw the first pictures of the neural circuits in brains, I was amazed by how random, chaotic and non sensical it seemed, since I was used to digital electronics and Microprocessor Schematics. Now, I know that reality has no sense or logic, only that which we impose upon it by our thought, logic and our own schematics.

So, at what point does a technology become a science ? it is actually Science that is a Technology, in a very subtle way, and we don’t notice it, but Science is a Technology: and this is what will be important when we start to directly modify our Mind Brain Design and change the way it works, thinks, its organizations, its sensations, its experiences and such. We will invent a new and real Science, a Science much closer to reality and much more real than anything our Civilization could have even imagined up to now…

and

“how is the study of the bio considered technology??”

  1. Biology is not even a science, it is based on studying a completely arbitrary, make believe fluke of a contraption Matter decided to produce through a completely fake, artificial, make believe process of Natural Evolution (a fancy way to simply say the Ball of Matter that is the Earth decided to play with itself and created (nay invented, just because, because Matter was “bored”) Man Brains) with no necessity or goal in mind, no need for Matter to wake up and make believe that it is alive, it should have stayed in bed and sleep instead, where its “Natural” place in the universe is: in other words, Matter and Mass Energy should just stop fooling around with itself creating contraptions that become alive and make believe that they are real when they are total lies and fake and inventions with no value whatsoever (see what happens when you don’t believe in GOD anymore ?). Matter should be still, dead, should not be conscious or alive, should be blind, a void, empty, please give us back nothing, good old nothing forever, void, empty, please kill all possible life in the universe, stop this lie of Matter pretending to be alive, kill Nature…Thank You. You’re Welcome.

  2. The “science” of biology is 100 % based on Intentionalities of Use, of decisions and models and goals already assigned from the outset and only according to how it relates to pain/pleasure circuits, to how we can interact and manipulate matter accordingly, how we can devise new Information Relationships to achieve our satisfaction and such.

  3. Since Physics and Mathematics (and the corollary logic, language, thought processes) are all based on reductionism, on precise patterns revealed, on precise mathematical or logical relationships discovered (but really invented, in a subtle way), but especially mathematical and therefore perceived as being so precise, and correct and incredible, and since from there on all of the other sciences build on top of Physics and Math and such, scientists conclude that there is something magical and mysterious in the way mathematics “describes” our state of affairs: nothing further from the truth, Matter is simply just talking to itself and making things up and lying to itself and inventing and creating virtualities (mental models and Intentionalities of Use) and such, all based on implied mental models and thought models and processes and therefore language, logic and mathematics, and looking at itself in the mirror and saying to itself, look how “precise” I am and such. Obviously this is the case of the Observer also being the Observed, the Processor also being the Information Item upon which the Processor is operating upon and such.

But to finally reveal how unprecise science really is, try to predict the exact next earthquake (and intensity and shape and such), try to predict the exact shape of the next cloud (mathematically, in millimeter terms, just like quantum electrodynamics predicts mass and charge and such of elementary particles, when it is really just predicting the huge precision of precision instruments set up to express mathematical relationships from the outset, the precision is already given since the machines are designed precisely and such), try to predict the exact shape and form of an ocean wave or the mountain shape, etc.

But the reason why you don’t want to or “need to” predict the precision of those elements (try to predict the precise configuration of pebbles on a street and such) is because we don’t need to do anything with it, it is outside of our usage (our function space), as a function for us to use, we can’t do anything with that precision, hence it becomes irrelevant and not important but especially because we can’t build any machine around that precision, we can’t construct any technology or function around the precision of the exact shape of a cloud and such. So, as you see the Intentionality of Use creates the need for a Function and hence for a Machine, a Task, an Operation and hence the origin of the “Unreasonable Precision of Mathematics in Describing the World”.