{Chaotic Determinism (+ Extracts) [continued (26)]}[4th August 1988]

[Redbook5:262][19880804:1705m]{Chaotic Determinism (+ Extracts) [continued (26)]}[4th August 1988]

.1705

[continued]

It is worth remembering that mathematically and scientifically, the discovery of Chaotic Deterministic patterns has brought conceptual problems.

Mathematically, I believe, there was often no proof: merely a kind of experiment with computers.

But scientifically, I presume, given that Chaotic Determinism is generally non-predictive in practice (eg after the 4th/5th bifurcation), the only ‘evidence’ often rested on the fitting of a computer-generated pattern to a series of observations of the physical world.

If this is still the case, what it presumably means is that there is no scientific theoretical basis for this link at all: the only reason why such a natural process should be expected to conform to such a pattern – ie to comply with those particular equations – in the future, is that it has always done so in the past. Bluntly, no one knows why, or even how except in terms of the equations themselves: if suddenly the process ceased to conform to the pattern, it would be impossible to advance any reason why it didn’t, as no one would know why it previously did.*

This hardly seems like Science, in the sense that the prediction of specific results from analytic [sic] theories (eg of the sub-structure of atoms) seems like Science. But perhaps it is only a difference of degree: the shift to computer-assisted Intuition.

*(Simply that it previously did)

[PostedBlogger25112018]