That pretty close, right? What's the issue?

Thank you, that's exactly what I was wondering.

Deterministic and non-deterministic chaos are not competing theories. They are just definitions of two different types of phenomena.

>uninformed people should not vote.

you're setting aside Big Number Theory.

i.e. in the guessing game at a rural fair where contestants make guesses at the weight of a large bull most of the contestants have no sophistication in gauging the weight of the animal. if only a few contestants enter guesses the amalgam of entries ranges far from the actual weight. but if there are a lot of entries the range gets a lot closer and many guesses are within a few pounds of the actual weight.

in politics there are no right answers but if large groups of people weigh in they will at least be submitting the amalgam of their societal flavor to the pot. since they are unlikely to vote for a person they don't like their votes aren't just going to be random.

you're also setting aside the chance to learn and the opportunity to push political debates onto substantive grounds. i place my vote. my guy or gal does their thing. either i got ripped off or they represented me well. next time i'll remember that outcome and vote accordingly. politicians will also be reacting to the votes: people in their district liked "this" or "that" so maybe they'll focus on those things to win those votes. but if i don't vote and politicians never hear me then we'll all be leaves in the wind; ruled by elitists and despots.

imo.

> evolution is "only a theory".

I disagree. Evolution is a theory that is also backed by substantial physical evidence, as well as a fairly comprehensive and sound narrative with substantial explanatory power that has sustained substantial challenges from many ideological camps for decades.

> the point is there is no known exception, and all we can do is look for exceptions.

Thus, a theory, one without substantive accompanying evidence comparable to that which exists for other theories that have been elevated to a higher epistemic level based on broad scientific (and other) consensus.

> if you give one I'm sure people would be interested to hear about it.

I am not making a contradictory claim, I am asking a question.

I find it odd how seemingly close minded and insular science has become in the 21st century, which is rather contrary to the self-serving self-description of the domain and the actors within it. Luckily, we only have mirrors in the physical realm. But then you never know what science, or something else, will come up with next.

I truly think quantum physics, mechanics, computing, etc will change the way we think about reality, existence, what it means to be human, morality, etc the more we learn. We appear to standing at the edge of some invisible precipice and the next leaps in technology and physics will make so many ideas philosophical obsolete and ridiculous, while expanding on and improving others. Also, cults! TechGnostics, reactionary primitivists, Basilisk cults, and oh so many new goofy California religions.

Setting aside that both sets are bounded by finite equations, shouldn’t “chaos” have some major role in defining “reality”?

I would say mostly because it is not compatible with libertarian free will and absolute objective morality.

> Is this not technically only a theory?

evolution is "only a theory". the point is there is no known exception, and all we can do is look for exceptions. if you give one I'm sure people would be interested to hear about it.

[removed]

wow determinism is really detested in here lmao

[removed]

> Chaos is a deterministic process which is "simply" dependent on changes to initial conditions.

Is this not technically only a theory? It is important that chaos can emerge from deterministic systems, but whether all instances of chaos emerge only from deterministic systems is another matter (although, perhaps it is a "by definition" issue, as opposed to a "what is reality actually composed of" issue, or reference vs referent).

At least, there seem to be some competing theories: Non-deterministic chaos.

[removed]

Read “Einstein’s Moon” by F. David Peat instead. It’s also timely if you know about this year’s Nobel prize in Physics.

https://www.goodreads.com/en/book/show/211172

She's cool, but she seems a bit arrogant at times and has some really iffy takes on panpsychism

That's not what the study you quoted says.

Her book is amazing, try to get one if you haven't read it yet.

I think you need to actually read both Popper and particularly Kuhn. It's not corruption that it takes a lot to overthrow an established theory, it's pragmatic and human.

Apart from the De Broglie Bohm interpretation of quantum mechanics which posits the statistical unpredictability in QM is due solely to deterministic chaos

I love Sabine!

[removed]

> You are suggesting that whether something is true or false is the same as whether it can be shown to be true or false with pseudo-code.

Incorrect - you are perceiving/interpreting that I am doing that. Please interpret my text literally, with a calm mind.

> This is a false premise.

Then you should abandon it. > > > > The only way your ".01% rigged" system would be "a rigged system" isn't that .01% of the system were a necessary and uncollectable operation component of 100% of the output of the system.

You do not actually possess knowledge of all ways in which a system could be rigged. You are speculating, necessarily.

> Systems are not black boxes.

They are to some degree, in that you do not possess omniscient knowledge of what is going on everywhere, you only possess belief that you possess this knowledge.

> A system doesn't have to be 100% reliable or uncorrupted to be reliable and uncorrupted.

Agree, but a system does have to be 100% reliable and uncorrupted to be 100% reliable and uncorrupted (which is what is being discussed here). Please do not move the goalposts.

> This isn't a matter simple enough for the literally braindead logic of pseudo-code....

The "braindeadedness" of the logic of pseudo-code is a function of the pseudo-code itself, and for us to get some insight into that under these circumstances, it would require that you post a representation of it. I can imagine that this is something you would rather not reveal, so if you do not want to reveal it, I understand.

> It requires reasoning, intelligence, and the ability to grasp the meaning (not merely a single definition) of words.

Agree!! So then, please: provide us insight into the inner workings of your mind, if you have the nerve.

>> Do you realize I covered this already, > > > > You did? Where?

Here: > > > These chunks are far more dependent on personal corruption than systemic 'rigging'. > > A reasonable speculation by common standards, although it is framed as (and perhaps even perceived as) a false dichotomy, so perhaps not likely to be necessarily correct. > > > A 'rigged' system implies that the system is specifically set up in a way to produce erroneous results. > > Very true! We could choose a different word if you'd like, but I will apply the same strict epistemology to that. > > > A small team or department producing erroneous results for personal profit motives, is quite a bit different then systemic rigging - primarily because the system would want it try remove the offending people, because the system itself does not approve of 'rigging'. > > Do you have knowledge of what is actually going on, or are you speculating? "does not 'approve of'" is a conveniently slippery/subjective way to consider it. > > > And we don't have to imagine a system either... > > It is not technically necessary, but to get to the level of detail you are making assertions about, imagination is necessary. > > > ...there are lots of drug regulatory agencies, from the FDA to Heath Canada, to the EMA that we can examine to assess this rigging claim. > > And the quality of such examinations is equal to the quality of the examinations, which is unknown to you and me (which is where imagination makes its appearance).

You are asserting that you posses comprehensive, fine-grained knowledge of what happens across the entire spectrum of scientific activities. I am talking about the entirety of the practice of science, you are talking about abstract definitions and intentions.

Actual science deals with accuracy and precision, and I am regularly told that scientists are the experts at this sort of thinking. I would like to see a demonstration of that expertise.

>> in a way that does not require me to have in-depth knowledge of how regulatory agencies are set up

> Why do you think this?

Logic, epistemology, abstraction, decomposition, knowledge of psychology & consciousness, etc.

> If your assumptions about how the regulation is enforced is wrong....

What assumption are you referring to here? Are you sure you aren't referring to your assumption about my (supposed) assumption?

Let's test the quality of your observational abilities: quote the text containing the assumption you are referring to.

> ...why do you think you'll be able to accurately assess how they perform, and whether that performance is 'rigged' or not?

I have made no claim that I am able to accurately assess how they perform - you on the other hand, have, but you seem oddly treluctant to explain how it is you know (as opposed to believe) that your assessments are accurate, in fact.

>>>>...but you're reducing the 'rigging' down to smaller active chunks that are not necessarily representative of the system.

>>> Correct - do you "get" why I am doing this?

>> Can you tell me why I am doing this?

> As far as I can tell...

Uh oh! Do you see your error?

> ...to explain how if, for example, in an agency with 10 departments, 1 of those departments is 'rigged' the agency is therefore 10% rigged.

Note that I also said: "Imagine a system composed of X departments or modules - simply divide the number of rigged ones by the total and you have your ratio - of course, to do this correctly one would need a flawless algorithm for objectively identifying rigged-ness, but most people would balk at that so they use heuristics or subjective algorithms that are claimed/implied to be objective."

> And so when asked the question "is the agency rigged" and looking for a binary yes/no answer.

If you are thinking in binary, that is part of your problem. I am certainly not looking for a binary answer - in fact, a non-binary answer is what I am curious whether you can generate!

> The answer is 'Yes - the agency is 'rigged'' - becuase 10% is greater than 0%.

See " Note that I also said..." above.

> As I explained before, I think 'rigged' is used poorly here....

I noted some issues with the classificaion....in fact, that is a fundamental component of my point!

>>>... becuase it implies a structure that pre-determines results, instead of results being corrupted after the fact.

That is only one possibility, there are many others. Malice is not even necessary.

> The entire set up of a regulatory agency is to specifically avoid pre-determining results.

Agreed, and the degree to which they are successful at it is equal to the degree that they are successful - you are expressing your opinion on the matter, I am interested in whether you can realize and acknowledge that this is what is happening here.

James Gleick's "Chaos" is incredible for anyone who hasn't read it!