Creationist scientific methods

In mainstream science what you do, is to try to find the initial conditions from where it's 100 percent likely someting would be, finding efficient causes along the way.In creationist science you do the exact opposite, you try to find from where it is 0 percent likely something would be, finding the decisions along the way.So creation science procedes by miracle, and mainstream science by (trying to find) absolute certainty.Let's compare the logic of the two:In mainstream science;
- the future is in the past
- the past consists of a single decision
- the present is irrellevantIn creationist science;
- the future consists of alternatives
- the past consists of a sequence of decisions
- the present is decidedSo isn't it fundamentally illogical to have the initial conditions explain anything to 100 percent?Isn't it true that an elephant is only 100 percent explained by an actual present elephant, and the initial conditions that caused an elephant can never fully explain an elephant?This here must be the fundamental reason why we can do without causal theory. In introducing anticipation theory Professor Dubois showed that you can do all of science without causes, but just with the conservation of some properties.For the intelligent design forum.regards,
Mohammad Nur Syamsu

In mainstream science what you do, is to try to find the initial conditions from where it's 100 percent likely someting would be, finding efficient causes along the way.(like exactly predicting where the moon is a 1000 years from now etc. or for example the practice in science that experiments should be 100 percent controlled, and when variation is found in results, then one must suggest some other causitive factors, and attribute error measurement to get to the full 100 percent)In creationist science you do the exact opposite, you try to find from where it is 0 percent likely something would be, finding the decisions along the way.(creatio ex nihilo. a decision changes the probability something will occur, so you go from 0 to 100 percent through history, the sequence of decisions)So creation science procedes by miracle, and mainstream science by (trying to find) absolute certainty.(something happening from zero probability of it happening, it's a mathematical definition of a miracle. The absolute certainty refers back to the 100 percent mentioned previously)Let's compare the logic of the two (seeing that they are two different time principles:In mainstream science;
- the future is in the past
(from an information point of view, the information of the position of the moon now, is in the position of the moon a thousand years ago, the information of the result of the experiment is in the initial conditions of the experiment)- the past consists of a single decision(everything is decided at the beginning, the initial conditions, otherwise known as determinism)- the present is irrellevant
(there is no place for the present in this logic, we just add it by our common knowledge that there is indeed a present, but it really plays no part in the logic from initial conditions)In creationist science;
- the future consists of alternatives
(well that seems selfexplanatory)- the past consists of a sequence of decisions
(self explanatory, history)- the present is decided
(the act of decision defines the now)So isn't it fundamentally illogical to have the initial conditions explain anything to 100 percent?
(how do you get from 100 percent to 100 percent, and what sense is there in that?)Isn't it true that an elephant is only 100 percent explained by an actual present elephant, and the initial conditions that caused an elephant can never fully explain an elephant?(obviously when we established a phenomenon is real, we see the elephant, we know the history is from smaller percentages, from when there was no elephant, to a certainty, when we see the elephant, perhaps the percentages going down along the way of going up at the last)This here must be the fundamental reason why we can do without causal theory. In introducing anticipation theory Professor Dubois showed that you can do all of science without causes, but just with the conservation of some properties.(Dubois is not obscure, but actually a wellknown awardwinning scientist who chaired several conferences on computing anticipation with many big names attending. So you know, some reputable scientist said that causal theory is unneccessary in science, and the logic as above is an idea about why it is false, and why a science that includes decisions is better)http://www.mindspring.com/~cerebroscopic/Dubois.html"A fundamental question is : are actual systems really causal ? In looking in equations of physics, there is no evidence that causation plays a central role or even exists ! "For the intelligent design forum.regards,
Mohammad Nur Syamsu

I don't have the references anymore, but I can remember Dubois referencing somebody "famously" saying "give me the initial conditions and I can explain everything."Then I can also remember reading Robert Rosen, also a big name, almost apologizing for engaging in the subject of anticipation, on account of the argument that since anticipation was not causal, it therefore wasn't scientific.I can also remember some years back an article which spoke of a quiet revolution in biology, which revolution was that biologists allowed for one to many, free, explanations in their papers.So mainstream science is generally based on causal theory, and nothing in the article you referenced seems to say otherwise.That there is some epistemological problem with achieving 100 percent certainty, as the article states, does not deny the fact that scientists on a practical basis do in fact aim for 100 percent certainty from initial conditions in their papers.For example they measured the position of the moon and found some difference with their prediction, then they suggested the mooninteraction with tidal waves and a few other factors, to explain away the variation. They did not actually research these particular factors, those were mere suggestions, as is standard procedure in science, that if you find variation, then suggest some causal factors to explain the difference. That way scientists strive to find 100 percent predetermination in initial conditions.

http://www.anticipation.info/...nticipatorysystems_rosen.pdfpage 5"For the basic cornerstones on which our entire scientific enterprise rests is the belief that events are not arbitrary, but obey definite laws which can be discovered. The search for such laws is an expression of our faith in causlity."
......
"Thus, from a knowledge of the values of all the relevant quantities as some initial instant t0 the values of these quantities at the succeeding instant t0 + dt are determined."
......etc.

In my view of mainstream science, what you do in practice, is to try to find the initial conditions from where it's 100 percent likely someting would be, finding efficient causes along the way. Whereas your finding is tentative, the phenomenon under investigation itself is proposed to behave with absolute 100 percent likelyhood towards the result.For example exactly predicting where the moon is a 1000 years from now. NASA measured the position of the moon and found some difference with their prediction. That prompted them to suggest the moons' interaction with tidal waves and a few other factors to explain away the difference. They did not actually research those particular factors, those were mere suggestions. In mainstream science it is standard procedure for experiments, that if you find variation in results, that you suggest some causal factors to explain away the difference.The general practice is that all factors in an experiment should be controlled, and when variation is found in results, then one must suggest some other causitive factors, and attribute error measurement, to get to the full 100 percent causation from initial conditions.In creationist science on the other hand you do the exact opposite. You try to find the initial conditions from where it is 0 percent likely something would be, finding the decisions along the way. The ancient discipline called "creatio ex nihilo", creation from nothing. A decision changes the probability something will occur. So you go from 0 to 100 percent through history, the sequence of decisions.Note that talking about probabilities in a creationist context, is talking about objects which have alternatives. So in a creationist context rolling a die is described in terms of the throw of the die itself having six possible alternatives to choose from. (what is called "strong anticipation" by professor Dubois who helped invent the mathematical basis for describing decisions). In mainstream science the probabilities are only with the observer, the probabilities are in the prediction of the throw of the die, (called weak anticipation) not with the thing itself.So creation science procedes by miracle, and mainstream science by (trying to find) absolute certainty in nature. Something happening from zero probability of it happening, that's a mathematical definition of a miracle. The cause and effect equations of mainstream science mathematically perfectly predetermine everything.Let's compare the logic of the two approaches, noticing that they are two different time principles:In mainstream science:- the future is in the pastWhen we calculate in terms of cause and effect, then from an information point of view, the information of the position of the moon now, must be contained in the position of the moon a thousand years ago. The information of the result of the experiment must be contained in the initial conditions of the experiment.- the past consists of a single decisionEverything is decided at the beginning, the initial conditions, otherwise known as determinism.- the present is irrellevantThere is no mathematical place for the present in this logic. A cause and effect equation just goes on into infinity, and there is no specialness to the present. We just add the present by our common knowledge that there is indeed a present, but it really plays no part in the logic from initial conditions.In creationist science:- the future consists of alternativesSo again, these alternatives exist in the actual future, they are actual part and parcel of any object (strong anticipation), and they don't refer to alternatives in the brain that are used for predictions (weak anticipation)(also notice how big a smartalec you could be, when you'd be able to tell people the difference between strong - and weak anticipation! just something to consider..)- the past consists of a sequence of decisionsThat is broadly how we ususally conceive of history. But it is just not a single chain, there is also rhythm in these sequences of decisions.- the present is decidedThe act of decision defines the now, so we have an identifiable present in our equations. (note that professor Dubois refers to a past, present, future, and also a current state, but I don't understand that last)So comparing the two, isn't it fundamentally illogical to have the initial conditions explain anything to 100 percent? How do you get from 100 percent information to 100 percent information, and what sense is there in that?Isn't it true that an elephant is only 100 percent explained by an actual present elephant, and the initial conditions that caused an elephant can never fully explain an elephant?Obviously, from a creationist point of view, when we have established a phenomenon is real, we see the elephant, then we know the history is from smaller percentages of likelyhood of the elephant coming to be, from when there was no elephant, to a full 100 pecent actualization, when we see the elephant, perhaps the percentages going down along the way of going up at the last)This argument about time must be the fundamental reason why we can do without causal theory in science. In introducing anticipation theory Professor Dubois showed that you can do all of science without causes, but just with the conservation of some properties.Dubois is a wellknown awardwinning scientist who chaired several conferences on computing anticipation with many big names attending. So some reputable scientist said that causal theory is unneccessary in science, and the logic as above is an idea about why it is false, and why a science that includes decisions is better.http://www.mindspring.com/~cerebroscopic/Dubois.html"A fundamental question is : are actual systems really causal ? In looking in equations of physics, there is no evidence that causation plays a central role or even exists ! "Another big name in anticipation science is Robert Rosen, who'se theories on anticipation Dubois generally refers to as "weak anticipation". (remember the difference!)http://www.anticipation.info/...nticipatorysystems_rosen.pdf
page 5"For the basic cornerstones on which our entire scientific enterprise rests is the belief that events are not arbitrary, but obey definite laws which can be discovered. The search for such laws is an expression of our faith in causlity."
......
"Thus, from a knowledge of the values of all the relevant quantities as some initial instant t0 the values of these quantities at the succeeding instant t0 + dt are determined."
......Edited by Syamsu, : No reason given.

I changed it. I can't call it "my view" of the scientific method, because I consider that method false. My view is the decision method, the mainstream view is the cause and effect method.

Okay, put it in free for all. I hope they don't engage in swearing there.

You might want to start by looking at your own knowledge about freedom, comparing it with strong anticipation theory. On an intellectual level your knowledge about freedom is very probably false. That should raise some concern for somebody who likes science, if their knowledge about something as fundamental as freedom is flawed. But the knowledge about freedom you use on a practical level in your day to day life is very probably correct, so no need to be overconcerned.So then when you have some sound intellectual knowledge about freedom, then you might start to comprehend creationism a bit, and begin to understand how evidence for creation is arrived at.

As before, the evidence is Dubois' strong anticipation theory, which posits anticipation in nature itself, as distinct from weak anticipation, which only talks about anticipation as in predictive models of a thing.So science says that your view of freedom / decisions is false. Your view of it is anthropocentric, meaning you only attribute freedom / decisions to people (and very probably your view of freedom and decisions of people is false as well).Try and get a handle on the view of decisions / freedom that is consistent with the strong anticipation view, because otherwise you can understand nothing about creation. Do some googlesearch on hyperincursive and read the various introductions to the concept of strong anticipation.regards,
Mohammad Nur Syamsu

I suggest you start dealing with your lack of knowledge about freedom / decisions. Why not???????????????????????????????Edited by Syamsu, : No reason given.

So to make it clear. This reputable awardwinning scientist who chaired several conferences with many scientists attending including some big names, has this theory which says that decisions are part and parcel of the laws of nature.Based on that, the scientist Taborsky then says that biological systems choose what species come to be by a reasoned and informed process.Obviously you all have a difficult time of it to understand the word decision and choosing in a context outside of human beings.But you should just take a look at how you are using those words practically in every-day life. There you don't neccessarily use those words in the context of human beings only, in common knowledge you use those words just to talk about having alternatives, and having the one alternative realized and the other alternatives not realized. That is a decision according to common knowledge, and it's got nothing to do with brains, it just has to do with alternatives, and one of them getting to be realized. The alternatives are not in the head, they are in the future of the system.So your practical common knowledge is basicly consistent with strong anticipation theory, but the philosphy about freedom, decisions, choosing etc. of all of you is just false.

Specifically Dubois used strong anticipation theory to describe Mercury's perihellion more accurately.There is some experimental evidence of slime mould computing, that the slime mould behaves according to strong anticipation theory.As for Taborsky identifying specific choices in biological systems, no she didnt.But I can ask you the same, is there any evidence whatsoever that natural selection occurs? Because natural selection as far as I understand Taborsky, does not take place except in the minds of Darwinists.This can be quite clearly understood if we make a comparitive theory to natural selection theory applied to rocks.Say a volcano or something produces some rocks which then roll down the hillside. These rocks have different shapes and sizes, and some of the rocks roll down further than other rocks. How far a rock rolls down is generally correllated to the shape and size of the rock. So is there then a process of differential rolling down the hill success going on in nature, just as there is a process of differential reproductive success going on amongst organisms? Or are these things merely after the fact statistical rationalizations of what has been going on, do these processes basicly occur only in scientists minds? Taborsky says that natural selection is just such an after the fact rationalization.Remember, I am not saying that all laws of nature are not real, quite the contrary I am saying that some laws of nature are much more real than we make them out to be currently, while other theories such as natural selection theory, are only occurring in people's minds.

This is indeed the best creationism has to offer.As before, your ideas about decisions / freedom, are proven false by science. Show some concern for having correct knowledge about fundamental things, why not?Edited by Syamsu, : No reason given.