Science cannot solve the final mystery

[cladking]

While I agree, it doesn't answer anything.
That no different than when discussing evolution you may as well just say life evolves the end.

This is a peek into orthodox circular reasoning.

You always end with the exact same conclusion as the assumptions you made originally. Few people ever even notice this so they never notice where Darwin went wrong.

"Ancient people were stinky footed bumpkins so everything they wrote reflects their bumkinhood. We are the crown of creation and masters of all creatures."

 

[Polymath257]

Science without a doubt does not have experience of stuffs popping into being ex nihilo sine causa. Bohmian mechanics, for instance, is completely deterministic and furthermore emphasizes that every indeterminacy is actually conceptual.

And almost no working physicists use Bohmian mechanics. Why not? Because it is more complicated than QM, it has a LOT of problems being extended into a relativistic theory, it has trouble handling anti-matter, spin, and a ton of other issues. None of which standard QM has problems with.

Bohmian mechanics is only interesting to philosophers who know very little physics.

“Being never arises from nonbeing,” “something will not originate from nothing” are putative metaphysical principles, just like cause and causatum, unhindered in their application. Hence, we certainly have excellent grounds, both abstractly as well as scientifically, for reasoning that whatsoever begins to exist has a cause.

And this is why metaphysics is unreliable: it makes assumptions about how things 'must be' and doesn't bother to check if that is how things really are. Causality is another big casualty of QM--which is not a causal theory at all.

And yes, we *do* detect 'random creation events of particle anti-particle pairs' from nothing.

 

[Polymath257]

And just how compassion and empathy escape you're understanding so does the reality of God's necessary existence.

Why do you think that compassion and empathy escape my understanding? My friends and coworkers don't seem to have any issues with my abilities with either.

Once again, are you a licensed psychologist to be able to make any sort of diagnosis over an internet forum?

And, did you actually read the one article you link to? It doesn't say that autistics can't understand the God concept. It just says that they tend to reject it. That is a very different thing.

 

[Polymath257]

Okay. This is the first post that has some connection to OP.

But your view is evidently wrong. I will write four points.

1. First is Planck's view itself. Planck knows that we, as part of nature, trying to understand nature is a self referential system which is beyond solution. It is a recursive loop. So Planck, a physicist says "Science cannot solve the ultimate mystery of nature. And that is because, in the last analysis, we ourselves are part of nature and therefore part of the mystery that we are trying to solve.”

2. Great Godel himself anticipated your trick. So he gave a disjunctive conclusion based on his theorems: the human mind (even within the realm of pure mathematics) infinitely surpasses the powers of any finite machine, or else there exist absolutely unsolvable diophantine problems of the type specified . . . (Gödel 1995: 310).

So. If the human mind is a Turing machine (as materialists believe) then there are unsolvable problems. Or, the human mind infinitely surpasses the powers of any finite machine.

And I can go further. We know of many unsolvable problems. Godel was talking about some of a very specific type, but I can list many unsolvable problems in math (no way to construct a 9-sided regular polygon with only straightedge and compass, no general algebraic solution to quintic polynomials, no Turing machine that solves the Halting problem, etc).

So what if there are unsolvable problems in any given axiom system? That most certainly does NOT show that the human mind is greater than anything a Turing machine can do.

You select either possibility and both the possibilities defeat materialism.

Really? Care to detail why? So, if there are unsolvable math problems, why would that imply a non-material aspect of existence?

3. The following four together prove beyond doubt that the ultimate reality, as it is, is unknowable --- to mental enquiry (italics my emphasis):

• Heisenberg's Uncertainty (Physics) — There is a limit to how accurately we can measure the properties of physical objects.
• Bell's Inequality (Physics) — That limit applies not just to our ability to measure things accurately, but to our fundamental ability to know things about physical objects.
• Gödel's Incompleteness (Mathematics) — Any attempt to explain everything using a small(er) set of axioms is doomed to be either unfinished or wrong.
• Turing's Undecidability (Computing) — There are infinitely many problems that cannot be solved by any digital computer.

Nope, these are definitely aspects of reality that we understand. The problem with the first two is that you assume realism and determinism when those are both solidly falsified by actual observations. The issue with the second is that they are abstract and have little to do with 'reality'.

4. Although, I expect you to be different from usual science fan-boys, yet it seems that I cannot ever make you acknowledge that you are wrong. So, let a true physicist speak. I request everyone who may be reading this to read the following text fully.

Godel and the End of Physics
​

The most relevant portion is reproduced below:
Finally.

Let me tell you how Vedanta sees this problem. It is much simpler and more elegant, in my opinion. Vedanta asks "Who will know the knower?"

It is a much precise and simpler formulation of the statement of Planck.

...

I suspect you don't actually understand what Hawking was talking about here. But once again, I am NOT a positivist. I don't think that only mathematical laws are allowed as scientific explanations.

 

[Polymath257]

To add to my last reply, which had morals and which didn't? In my opinion we don't know.

-Homo Heidelbergensis
-Homo Rudolfensis
-Homo Habilis
-Homo Floresiensis
-Homo Erectus
-Homo Neanderthalensis
-Homo Sapiens

Given that many other primates have some rudimentary morals linked to compassion and a sense of fairness, I would bet ALL of those listed had some sort of moral structure in their lives. I would also bet that the moral structures became more complicated as time went on.

 

[We Never Know]

Given that many other primates have some rudimentary morals linked to compassion and a sense of fairness, I would bet ALL of those listed had some sort of moral structure in their lives. I would also bet that the moral structures became more complicated as time went on.

I agree. But it's something we can't show, we can only assume, basically we don't know.
It reminds me of a discussion the other day about dogs feeling guilt. They seem to express guilt but is it a learned behavior for a certain response.

 

[ecco]

While I agree, it doesn't answer anything.
That no different than when discussing evolution you may as well just say life evolves the end.

You asked: Where do you think morals come from?
I replied: Evolution.
Did you instead want to know how morals are formed in the brain?

 

[Polymath257]

I agree. But it's something we can't show, we can only assume, basically we don't know.
It reminds me of a discussion the other day about dogs feeling guilt. They seem to express guilt but is it a learned behavior for a certain response.

I'm not sure there is a detectable difference between those two. Is *our* morality a learned behavior for certain responses? One difference I can see is that we do tend to generalize our morality more. But rhesus monkeys seem to do that also.

 

[Polymath257]

You asked: Where do you think morals come from?
I replied: Evolution.
Did you instead want to know how morals are formed in the brain?

The recent book 'Behave' explores some of this in a wonderful exposition. For example, the same wiring is used for moral disgust and culinary disgust. It seems that the older, culinary version was 'hijacked' for use in the moral context.

 

[We Never Know]

You asked: Where do you think morals come from?
I replied: Evolution.
Did you instead want to know how morals are formed in the brain?

Actually I was looking for a more in depth answer. If you asked me where did dinosaur come from and I replied evolution, that's really not an explainable answer. I should expect you were looking for a more in depth answer.

 

[Polymath257]

Actually I was looking for a more in depth answer. If you asked me where did dinosaur come from and I replied evolution, that's really not an explainable answer. I should expect you were looking for a more in depth answer.

One problem is that we don't know a more in depth answer for much of morality as yet. At least one important aspect is getting to a 'theory of mind' where individuals keep track not only what everyone *does*, but also what they *know*. At that point social ostracism or encouragement seem to become relevant with some older brain circuits being used in new ways (moral disgust, is the example above).

Much more than this becomes speculative. But read the book I mentioned (or listen to the wonderful lectures on Human Behavioral Biology of of Standford by the same guy).

 

[ecco]

Then are you suggesting there was no "God" whose name meant "The Hidden"!

It really doesn't matter if there was a god" whose name meant "The Hidden"! Gods are a dime a dozen. Whatever their creators called them is of no matter in the grand scheme of things.

You know that we already know everything and it's not necessary to continue to seek understanding?

Are you stating or asking? If you are stating, then you are wrong. If you are asking, then my answer is that we don't know everything and probably never will but we should continue to look.

You know there will never be machine intelligence and don't need to discuss it!

You know AI will be sufficient to Turing's test so sufficient for all human and future needs!

You know you are smart so there's no need to review the reasons for this knowledge.

But best of all you know the formatting of reality itself even before physics has a unified field theory.

It seems you think you know a lot about me. Your comments prove that you don't.

You may even already be able to predict the future since you call my statement that we'll probably never be able to predict it "woo".

I can't predict the future, but I can recreate the past:

I believe reality is like an onion and we've barely even scratched its skin.

Woo.

I see nothing in that exchange in regards to you saying anything about predicting the future.

Your words are simple non-communicative nonsense that you expect to get away with since it's just one word.

I'm not trying to "get away with anything". I just have this habit of calling out woo when I see it. Your comment: "I believe reality is like an onion and we've barely even scratched its skin." met the requirement.

Now you can ignore the facts and logic and attempts at communication and just post "woo" and be done with it.

It's plain to see from my extended response that you are wrong (again).

I should have been done with your nonsense some time back. The facts and logic that support my arguments are of no interest to you since you can just label them instead of thinking.

As I said in an earlier post:

I'll be glad to discuss facts and logic when you present them.

Still waiting.

 

[ecco]

To add to my last reply, which had morals and which didn't? In my opinion we don't know.

-Homo Heidelbergensis
-Homo Rudolfensis
-Homo Habilis
-Homo Floresiensis
-Homo Erectus
-Homo Neanderthalensis
-Homo Sapiens

Considering that chimps, orangutans, and bonobos have morals, I think it's safe to say that those on your list had them too.


ETA: I note polymath already commented on this.

 

[cladking]

It really doesn't matter if there was a god" whose name meant "The Hidden"! Gods are a dime a dozen. Whatever their creators called them is of no matter in the grand scheme of things.

Exactly. Because you already know we are the crown of creation and ancient people were ignorant and superstitious.

If you are asking, then my answer is that we don't know everything and probably never will but we should continue to look.

Yet, the only way you can see to look is with modern science. You know there can be no other means to process facts and reason.

I'm not trying to "get away with anything". I just have this habit of calling out woo when I see it. Your comment: "I believe reality is like an onion and we've barely even scratched its skin." met the requirement.

And it meets it because you know almost everything. In your world it doesn't matter that we don't understand gravity because everywhere you look you see your models. This is the EXACT SAME THING we all see; exactly what we believe.

You will not respond to facts and logic unless they fit your models. You haven't yet.

 

[We Never Know]

Considering that chimps, orangutans, and bonobos have morals, I think it's safe to say that those on your list had them too.

Several studies I have read say they "seem to have, may have, believe to have" morals.

 

[ecco]

You will not respond to facts and logic unless they fit your models. You haven't yet.

Again, when you present any facts and logic I will address them.

Following is an example of the nonsensical illogical non-facts you have been posting.

Exactly. Because you already know we are the crown of creation and ancient people were ignorant and superstitious.

I do not know "we are the crown of creation" because I don't believe in any nonsensical thing called the "crown of creation".

Many ancient people were superstitious. Many modern people are superstitious. What's your point?
Ancient people were ignorant of many things we know about now. That wasn't their fault. Many modern people are willfully ignorant of things they should know about now. What's your point?



I am getting bored with waiting for something logical and factual coming from you.

 

[We Never Know]

Exactly. Because you already know we are the crown of creation and ancient people were ignorant and superstitious.



Yet, the only way you can see to look is with modern science. You know there can be no other means to process facts and reason.



And it meets it because you know almost everything. In your world it doesn't matter that we don't understand gravity because everywhere you look you see your models. This is the EXACT SAME THING we all see; exactly what we believe.

You will not respond to facts and logic unless they fit your models. You haven't yet.

How are we the crown of creation?
Without other species, we die
Without oxygen, we die
Without water, we die
Without the sun, we die
Etc.

Without earth, we wouldn't exist
Without the solar system, we wouldn't exist
Without our galaxy, we wouldn't exist
Without the universe, we wouldn't exist.

We are just a mere spec in the universe that our own existence is dependant upon many factors and surviving/staying alive is dependant upon many factors.

 

[ecco]

“Science cannot solve the ultimate mystery of nature. ”

Has anyone stated what the ultimate mystery of nature is?

 

[We Never Know]

Exactly. Because you already know we are the crown of creation and ancient people were ignorant and superstitious.



Yet, the only way you can see to look is with modern science. You know there can be no other means to process facts and reason.



And it meets it because you know almost everything. In your world it doesn't matter that we don't understand gravity because everywhere you look you see your models. This is the EXACT SAME THING we all see; exactly what we believe.

You will not respond to facts and logic unless they fit your models. You haven't yet.

Not to mention this crown of creation you think we are is equal to a virus that's been put upon on this earth with all the destruction, pollution and extinctions we cause.

 

[cladking]

How are we the crown of creation?
Without other species, we die
Without oxygen, we die
Without water, we die
Without the sun, we die
Etc.

Without earth, we wouldn't exist
Without the solar system, we wouldn't exist
Without our galaxy, we wouldn't exist
Without the universe, we wouldn't exist.

We are just a mere spec in the universe that our own existence is dependant upon many factors and surviving/staying alive is dependant upon many factors.

All life requires specific conditions and has specific needs to survive.

But humans can survive almost anywhere including space and the surface of the moon. We have the knowledge and tools to rule other creatures. People believe this makes us the crown of creation no matter what exact words they use to express the concept. People believe we are the only intelligent life on the planet and most believe we are the only conscious life/ life with a soul/ life that can use abstraction etc etc.

We all believe this and I'm saying none of it is true. Reality doesn't exist because we "think". Reality doesn't even exist as we believe it exists. We are the only superstitious life on the planet and before the Tower of Babel "humans" were not superstitious. We are a race that acquired superstition and the only race that uses confused language. Other life doesn't "know" as much about reality as we but even an eggplant probably has a better model for the formatting of existence than we do! This is because our confused language has provided erroneous assumptions about the nature of life and our own nature. Some of these assumptions underlie science so without an understanding of metaphysics and epistemology most of us have a very confused understanding of the nature of scientific results (experiment) as well.

So long as we can only see what we believe we can't see everything is a circular argument.

Anyone can say they don;'t think ancient people were ignorant and superstitious but this is still virtually universal. No matter who you ask ancients didn't know Jesus, had multiple "Gods", had no science at all, and lacked the ability to even fly much less go to space. They didn't even have the printing press or concrete plants!!! Everyone believes they were primitive, ignorant, superstitious savages no matter what words are used to label them.

And everyone knows we now have the Bible, Jesus, space flight, and Peer reviewed "science" to tell us what's up and what's down. We are the very epitome of evolution and smarter, faster, and more adaptable than people of the past.

I say we're wrong across the board. Everything we believe is wrong virtually by definition and then people want to use semantics to tell me how smart ancient people were. Ancient people knew they were ignorant and not "intelligent". We don't even know that much!!!