The Chaos in “Chaos Theory”

Contrary to science history, chaos was first observed when two proto-humans decided to share a cave. One invented the axe and the other barely escaped to found a priesthood of philosophy and mathematics towards developing a theory of chaos to minimize future risks of mating and reproduction. The axe-maker stayed focused on design development and arms proliferation, ever-haunted by lost opportunities for a career in cave-painting.

Humor. Nevertheless, Chaotic-Reality-as-Perceived is best understood by its acronym: CRAP. Because, although turbulence is a fundamental process in Omniverse, it cannot be correctly called “chaotic” as defined by mathematicians seeking to understand Nature as if it were a paint-by-numbers artwork. Their chosen problem is similar to living in an eternal realm and trying to calculate when it will end. As they say: Good luck with that.

Seemingly random events have—and will always—trouble those who believe they have little or no direct influence over the world they perceive as “external” and separate from themselves, and who, therefore, attempt to predict the attitude and activities of all these god-like forces that lie beyond their control. To reinforce their flawed perception and failed predictions, they formulate ancillary laws, like Murphy’s Law, which states: “Anything that can go wrong, will go wrong”—the mantra of incompetent managers everywhere. When they hang that sign on their office wall they might as well hang one next to it that says: “I have no idea what I’m doing and lack the drive to find out.”

Among related discoveries by PluribusOne™ through use of its Noetitek™ system, we found that Consciousness comprises three of nine dimensions of the Space-Time-Mind of Omniverse. Nothing is truly random or chaotic, and nothing observable in ordinary linear Time can truly be said to have “initial conditions,” a structural component of Chaos Theory. Everything in Space and Time is the product of Consciousness—intent directed toward manifestation. The stuff of formal Chaos Theory is delusion, beginning with the general perception of ”disorder” and continuing on through the defining properties of such perceived disorder: (1) sensitivity to initial conditions, (2) topological mixing, and (3) dense periodic orbits. Even some mathematicians find it disagreeable.

Prediction is the fixation of those scientists who not only perceive themselves as neutral observers, but who quest after means to ensure that they are as ineffectual as possible in influencing outcomes. Ponder that. Those of us whose goal is diametrically opposed to such thinking, and who focus on setting and achieving goals—often with high degrees of success—can only shake our heads in bafflement at those so blind that they would refuse to follow the guidance of a seeing-eye dog tugging them out of a burning building. If you are sensing our exasperation, then we are communicating exactly as intended.  

One tailored-to-a-topic definition of insanity is: using the same tried-and-failed exotic economic theories and expecting them to guide the way to global prosperity. The situation is no better with respect to facing challenges to: create harmony among nations, prepare for escalating environmental disasters, or plan for our expansion into outer space. Forget Chaos Theory and its bogus Butterfly Effect. Tools and techniques for perception-enhancement and intelligence augmentation are available and need to be applied now. If you have not done so already, please read the “Text of 2012 Speech” (link is posted on our home page), and look at more of our two-hundred-fifty-plus articles spread across the twenty-three subject categories of our Mavintory™.

Advertisements

Tags: , , , , , ,

2 Responses to “The Chaos in “Chaos Theory””

  1. Sandi Says:

    I think I agree with you but is there any science other than your own system that would support your conclusion? The Butterfly effect is popular. They even made a movie.

  2. PluribusOne™ Says:

    In the 1960s, building on earlier work of Dr. J. B. Rhine, a Dr. Helmut Schmidt, physicist, devised a Random Event Generator that generated randomly flashing lights. Observers made predictions about the lights. But were the observers making predictions or affecting the results? To test whether results can be affected by observers, he devised a Random Numbers Generator that gave an odd or even result, like a simple coin toss.

    Schmidt knew that, if the results were merely random, the greater the number of tests the closer the number of “odds” should become to the number of “evens.” The expectation of conventional science was that this would show that the chance of getting one result or the other is always 50/50. However, his experiments showed variances in the range of 1% to 4%. Something other than randomness was at work.

    Following Schmidt’s research, a professor at Princeton University, Dr. Robert Jahn, further refined experimentation on randomness. He added controls and protocols to remove all doubts about the source of deviation. Jahn confirmed the variance. Then he had observers make conscious efforts to influence results. Depending on the observer, the variances were even greater.

    The experiments of Rhine, Schmidt, and Jahn are some of the most examined and replicated in all of science. Their research has withstood all efforts to denounce their protocols or debunk them as frauds. No non-dogmatic scientist can honestly deny the power of human intentionality. Yet, although the implications for Physics are enormous, this “phenomenon” was shoved under the label of Parapsychology—the ugly stepchild of Psychology, a field that itself is still considered less than scientific by some.

    The power of intention is stronger and more obvious in some people than others—some are “naturals.” But the basic ability and related abilities are present in everyone, ready to be acknowledged, strengthened, and developed. The core inner resource is something that we (and some others) call “subjective conviction.” In other words, a person’s experience of “reality” is shaped in accordance with their deeply and firmly held beliefs.

    Only the lamest of belief systems can accept the notion that butterflies create tornadoes and could destroy the world. Unless the butterflies team up with Killer Tomatoes they haven’t got a chance. Not even 50/50. Not in this world.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s