Quoting Case <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > [Platt] > I thought that scientists have designed models of stable chaotic systems > that work pretty much like the real thing. Haven't got the details at my > fingertips but I guess you know what I'm talking about. If I'm right, I > think that shows that complex stable chaotic systems like those of living > things could have been designed. Doesn't prove that they were, just that > they might have been designed by a higher intelligence. > > [Case] > There are lots of computer models but I didn't think you liked those. During > storm seasons, weather men show projected storm paths based on various > models of weather patterns. But there are lots of sites that show models of > chaotic patterns. I started to give the example of novelty toys that use > arrangements of pendulums and magnets and display chaotic behavior. Or > dripping faucets. Or rush hour traffic. Or the frequency and severity of > typing errors in my MoQ posts.
Dripping faucets, rush hour traffic and typing errors are hardly models of stable chaotic systems. They are such systems. (I wonder how order is ever achieved by all those firing neurons in process of typing a word or two?) But, I'm glad you agree that designed models can achieve facsimiles of natural phenomena, even if I find them less than accurate due to limitations in taking all factors into account. However, I do get a kick out of deterministic random number generators just for the paradox implied. :-) ------------------------------------------------- This mail sent through IMP: http://horde.org/imp/ moq_discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
