Chaos Theory. Even having a system described by equations, and having the value of the variables, the prediction of the state of the system can be quite limited.
Chaos theory concerns deterministic systems whose behavior can in principle be predicted. Chaotic systems are predictable for a while and then 'appear' to become random. The amount of time that the behavior of a chaotic system can be effectively predicted depends on three things: How much uncertainty can be tolerated in the forecast, how accurately its current state can be measured, and a time scale depending on the dynamics of the system, called the Lyapunov time. Some examples of Lyapunov times are: chaotic electrical circuits, about 1 millisecond; weather systems, a few days (unproven); the inner solar system, 4 to 5 million years. In chaotic systems, the uncertainty in a forecast increases exponentially with elapsed time. Hence, mathematically, doubling the forecast time more than squares the proportional uncertainty in the forecast. This means, in practice, a meaningful prediction cannot be made over an interval of more than two or three times the Lyapunov time. When meaningful predictions cannot be made, the system appears random.
[RL: wikipedia is a tertiary source but it is usually a good starting point. I personally only touched very superficially in introductory physics practices with Lyapunov diagrams (with a pendulum in a lab) and in math,calculating in linear equations points of stability. But it was tangentially related to what I was studying and it was many years ago. So ...]
TL;DR Chaos and Theory may be two faces of the same coin.
Custadia and Loftegen 2
Ooooooo! Fourth Breakfast just arrived for the Royal Roundnesses! There will be food!
Ireland isles, Mzeusia, and Loftegen 2
Advisor: "We have completed the tasks you have given to us, though the population is in distraught that they're forced to be vegetarians."
Boris: "They'll be fine. Let me see what's next on my board here."
*Make disrespecting (applies to even tourists) illegal
*Fund schools and hospitals in smaller nations (As well as making sure they are not taught lies)
*Offer humanitarian support to nations in dire situations
*Donate to communist parties in nations (If allowed and only if the party shows integrity and promise)
*Encourage secularism and equality
Boris: "This will be all for a while. After this go on and take a break. I'll be boxing with the palace guards."
Advisor: "Right away!"
1) You err gravely here, namely by the petitio principii fallacy. You seek the conclusion that physical, instrumental causes are the sole causes of effects--to the exclusion of a Prime Mover, yet you argue as your first premise that all effects are the products of one of such instrumental causes. You have proven nothing, but only reiterated the conclusion that you fancy. You must answer this question: what part of the interaction between space-time and quantum fields, etc, precludes the possibility that these causes are not contingent upon a cause that is still prior to it?
2) I suppose that your scribe has erred in recording your dictation onto this manuscript, and that you meant to say "There cannot be a first cause alone to predetermine everything at the end." Your argument is yet again inadequate. The Philosopher has stated in the first of the Metaphysics that the most intelligible thing in itself is the least intelligible to the human mind. You have merely pointed out that the workings of cosmological determinacy cannot be grasped by the human mind, and not that it cannot exist.
3)Please clarify this statement.
4) You have spoken well in arguing that we cannot assign simplistic moral values to order and chaos while considering the effects that flow from each. God instrumentalizes the latter to achieve an order that is inscrutable in the present situation. Your example of life is a prime example, the apparent chaos described thence is only desirable insofar as it is a part of an the ordered equilibrium that is the living being. I challenge you to name one instance in which chaos is desired for its own sake--you cannot. If you suppose that adherence to science and rationality is moral and that belief in witchcraft and superstition is immoral, you are assigning intrinsic moral value to the order-the adaequatio rei et intellectus that undergirds the former, and spurning the pagan intuition of a abysmally melancholic world ruled by conflicting, unseen, and fundamentally chaotic forces.
Why not a pantheon? Why not another supreme God? Because the Lord Jesus Christ has revealed to me the truth with regard to this matter with an assurance more certain than my intuition that the external world exists. By the same token you ask me to discard my certainty in the existence and nature of God, I can ask you to discard that nebulous feeling of certainty that holds you back from solipsism. Also, there have been millions of words written in support of other lines of argument, and there is not enough room to review all of them here.
I see that you are quite novice to the field of biblical exegesis. That verse can be read in an infinite amount of ways, but the tradition of orthodoxy--St. Augustine, Pope St. Gregory IX, Pope Boniface VIII--has revealed to us the correct interpretation--and it is certainly contrary to yours.
Saw this quote today and thought it was cool... ^-^
“Listen to your life. See it for the fathomless mystery it is. In the boredom and pain of it, no less than in the excitement and gladness: touch, taste, smell your way to the holy and hidden heart of it, because in the last analysis all moments are key moments, and life itself is grace.”
Do any of y'all like a particular quote? :D
Tubbius and Mrs. Tubbius are ready for bed. Teeth are brushed, eyeglasses are cleaned and set aside, Tubbras are off, and nightgowns are on! Doggy Tubbius is already curled up atop the dozing Mrs. Tubbius, so His Immensity clicks off the light switch and mmphs into place under the covers.
Snoring soon ensues.