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 past
When 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 decision
Everything is decided at the beginning, the initial conditions, otherwise known as determinism.
- the present is irrellevant
There 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 alternatives
So 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 decisions
That 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 decided
The 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.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."
......
Edited by Syamsu, : No reason given.
™ Version 4.2