Holy Carp what a pile of false accusation and strawman fallacy and made up nonsense.
I AM NOT arguing for 'Intelligent Design' because ID argues for randomness in nature as part of the reason why Intelligent Design is necessary.
Intelligent design theory attempts to refute the chance and random forces which drive evolution. Intelligent designers like William Dembski insist that because of its complexity, life on Earth was created by an intelligent being, not by the evolutionary forces of change over time and descent with modification.
Intelligent design argues that nature is too random and complex to be explainable by Natural Laws and processes. That is why they use corrupted form of probability to explain why evolution cannot take place naturally without a designer.
I argue for "Natural Determinism" where the variation in the outcomes of cause and effect events is limited by Natural Laws and processes and the veriability of outcomes can be modeled with Chaos theory as fractal as with weather prediction models., which is why the falsification of theories and hypothesis in science is predictable and verifiable. If it were random hypotheses and theories could not be falsified.
Example of radioactive decay models and fractal relationships: Fractal power laws and radioactive waste decay
Fractal power laws and radioactive waste decay
Here’s a fairly simple model for nuclear reactor decay heat versus time. It’s based on a fractal model I came up with for dealing with the statistics of crime, fires, etc. The start was to notice that radioactive waste is typically a mixture of isotopes with different decay times and different decay heats. I then came to suspect that there would be a general fractal relation, and that the fractal relation would hold through as the elements of the mixed waste decayed to more stable, less radioactive products. After looking a bit, if seems that the fractal time characteristic is time to the 1/4 power, that is
heat output = H° exp (-at1/4).
Here H° is the heat output rate at some time =0 and “a” is a characteristic of the waste. Different waste mixes will have different values of this decay characteristic.
If nuclear waste consisted of one isotope and one decay path, the number of atoms decaying per day would decrease exponentially with time to the power of 1. If there were only one daughter product produced, and it were non-radioactive, the heat output of a sample would also decay with time to the power of 1. Thus, Heat output would equal H° exp (-at) and a plot of the log of the decay heat would be linear against linear time — you could plot it all conveniently on semi-log paper.
But nuclear waste generally consists of many radioactive components with different half lives, and these commpnents decay into other radioactive isotopes, all of whom have half-lives that vary by quite a lot. The result is that a semi-log plot is rarely helpful. Some people therefore plot radioactivity on a log-log plot, typically including a curve for each major isotope and decay mode. I find these plots hardly useful. They are certainly impossible to extrapolate. What I’d like to propose instead is a fractal variation of the original semi-log plot: a plot of the log of the heat rate against a fractal time. As shown below the use of time to the 1/4 power seems to be helpful. The plot is similar to a fractal decay model that I’d developed for crimes and fires a few weeks ago.
Last edited:
