mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
No, we have both humanities and human science.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Let's not talk about the Big Bang
- Thread starter YoursTrue
- Start date
No, we have both humanities and human science.
ratiocinator
Lightly seared on the reality grill.
Some of those a bit ambiguous as to what they actually mean but basically some are just different branches of science and some of them are not science at all.
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
Evidence for the bold. We are playing culture.
Only 7?
I bet I could come up with more than 7.
Pseudo science
Fraudulent science
Argumentative science
Theoretical science
Random science
Interpretive science
Religious science
Orthodox science
There's 8.
Any overlap with the Danish scientific community?
Science as the methodical study of some subject.
Ideally using the scientific method but not necessarily.
The only practical method I use it for is the scientific method.
Science as a tool of validation. Of course people are free to define science in impractical ways.
I am curious, do Danes classify Physics as a subfield of Mathematics, or as a separate discipline as we do in the U.S.?
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
Only 7?
I bet I could come up with more than 7.
Pseudo science
Fraudulent science
Argumentative science
Theoretical science
Random science
Interpretive science
Religious science
Orthodox science
There's 8.
Any overlap with the Danish scientific community?
Science as the methodical study of some subject.
Ideally using the scientific method but not necessarily.
The only practical method I use it for is the scientific method.
Science as a tool of validation. Of course people are free to define science in impractical ways.
Yeah, I had excepted better from you.
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
No, that is natural science as a sub-field.
My view of the boundless existence has no beginning and no end is hypothetically what the nature of our physical existence is beyond our universe in the multiverse concept, which will not ever be resolved unless we can find remnants of another universe in out universe.. The existence of the singularity from which the universe arose is an unresolved issue. In this view at present our universe has no known beginning not end. It is also possibly cyclic.
I as well as Hawking consider this view likely unresolvable, because of the lack of potential evidence. We will have wait and see what the future of out knowledge brings.
Physicists Debate Hawking’s Idea That the Universe Had No Beginning | Quanta Magazine
A recent challenge to Stephen Hawking’s biggest idea — about how the universe might have come from nothing — has cosmologists choosing sides.
The “no-boundary proposal,” which Hawking and his frequent collaborator, James Hartle, fully formulated in a 1983 paper, envisions the cosmos having the shape of a shuttlecock. Just as a shuttlecock has a diameter of zero at its bottommost point and gradually widens on the way up, the universe, according to the no-boundary proposal, smoothly expanded from a point of zero size. Hartle and Hawking derived a formula describing the whole shuttlecock — the so-called “wave function of the universe” that encompasses the entire past, present and future at once — making moot all contemplation of seeds of creation, a creator, or any transition from a time before.
“Asking what came before the Big Bang is meaningless, according to the no-boundary proposal, because there is no notion of time available to refer to,” Hawking said in another lecture at the Pontifical Academy in 2016, a year and a half before his death. “It would be like asking what lies south of the South Pole.”
Stephen Hawking and James Hartle at a 2014 workshop near Hereford, England.
Cathy Page
Hartle and Hawking’s proposal radically reconceptualized time. Each moment in the universe becomes a cross-section of the shuttlecock; while we perceive the universe as expanding and evolving from one moment to the next, time really consists of correlations between the universe’s size in each cross-section and other properties — particularly its entropy, or disorder. Entropy increases from the cork to the feathers, aiming an emergent arrow of time. Near the shuttlecock’s rounded-off bottom, though, the correlations are less reliable; time ceases to exist and is replaced by pure space. As Hartle, now 79 and a professor at the University of California, Santa Barbara, explained it by phone recently, “We didn’t have birds in the very early universe; we have birds later on. … We didn’t have time in the early universe, but we have time later on.”
The no-boundary proposal has fascinated and inspired physicists for nearly four decades. “It’s a stunningly beautiful and provocative idea,” said Neil Turok, a cosmologist at the Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics in Waterloo, Canada, and a former collaborator of Hawking’s. The proposal represented a first guess at the quantum description of the cosmos — the wave function of the universe. Soon an entire field, quantum cosmology, sprang up as researchers devised alternative ideas about how the universe could have come from nothing, analyzed the theories’ various predictions and ways to test them, and interpreted their philosophical meaning. The no-boundary wave function, according to Hartle, “was in some ways the simplest possible proposal for that.”
ratiocinator
Lightly seared on the reality grill.
Which is tending towards word salad, but before you said:-
So what has the Hawking Hartle no boundary hypothesis got to do with some "quantum matrix" beyond space-time?
First, thes are not cultures nor Danish cultures.
This does not address the problem of your confused view of science and culture. The above list are different fields of academics, and nothing to do with culture. They all cross the culture boundaries of the world in universities and other institutions of learning in different cultures,
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
And all consider science in Denmark and not just natural science as you claim as science.
Denmark have a different culture of what is consider science than your culture. We don't accept only your version.
ratiocinator
Lightly seared on the reality grill.
I suspect it's more of a translation problem. Whatever word you are translating to 'science' probably doesn't have exactly the same meaning as the strict technical usage in English. Probably not your fault, a direct translation may not exist.
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
Well, no, it is not. The book clearly explain the difference between science in English and videnskab in Danish.
Now try using Google translate on humanistisk videnskabsteori and no it is not humanities. It is humanistic.
No coherent response as usual.
It shares the no time, no space, no gravity properties of the Quantum, Matrix. Quantum Mechanics at the smallest scale.
Academically there is no difference in science in any language. All the universities of the world translate their work in science in most if not all languages of the world without changing the science. Science remains science across cultural and linguistic boundaries.
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
Well, the book is about humanistisk videnskabsteori. It is not about naturalistisk videnskabsteori. Google translate the 2.
ratiocinator
Lightly seared on the reality grill.
So "humanistic theory of science" - no idea what that means but I do know what the technical meaning of 'science' is in English and some of the things you listed are just not science in that sense and wouldn't be recognised as such internationally.
There is clearly a communication problem with what you're saying because science is recognised and gets done internationally.
Who wrote the book. What is their area of expertise?
ratiocinator
Lightly seared on the reality grill.
Does it? It doesn't say that in any parts you quoted. So again, where is the reference?
Neither did it say anything about space and time being quantised at the "smallest scale".
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
They are professors in psychology or in Danish psykologi/human videnskab.
Now just because you have a cultural standard doesn't mean it is universal, because you say it is.
You do know of the term cultural relativism. That is what is going on here.
ratiocinator
Lightly seared on the reality grill.
That could explain a lot and opens the door to a whole host of possible misunderstanding.
I didn't say it did. There are, however, means and organisations that support international cooperation and collaboration in science, and they are the standard that the world uses.
There is no way that humanities are science, and, for entirely different reasons, neither are mathematics and logic. They don't use the scientific method.