Science cannot solve the final mystery

[gnostic]

How do you know that there is no ending to discovery in science?

Do you think there is nothing else to learn?

Do you think there are no other mysteries in nature?

Do you think we should simply stop making advances in science and in technology?

Well, I thought Hinduism was more progressive than this.

Unless it is just you. Because if you answer "no" to any of the above question, for Hindu, you are surely one narrow-minded person, if you really think there are nothing more to learn.

I think you have misunderstood Planck's view about mystery, and I think you have misunderstood the article you provided the link in the OP.

There will always be mysteries in nature, some we may know and understand, some of which may never be understood. That's how I view your article.

Science never claimed to know everything. Science never claimed to make no mistakes.

For millennia, people thought the Earth was static and stationary, while the sun and planets moved in our sky, hence the geocentric model of planetary motion. Claudius Ptolemy (flourished in 2nd century CE) explained this "law" on geocentric, and it was popular enough that the Christian adopted this model as "science".

The other less than popular view, first advocated by Hellenistic Greek astronomer, Aristarchus of Samos, 3rd century BCE, postulated that it was the Sun that was stationary while the planets, including the Earth orbited around the Sun, hence the heliocentric model of planetary motion. As I under it some Hindu astronomers, unsuccessfully supported such model, but had no traction with the Hindu societies.

It was only when Nicolaus Copernicus and Galileo Galilei brought the heliocentric back to life, that eventually geocentric model was finally trashed as being wrong.

Even with massive optical and radio telescopes, and those space observatories that orbited around the Earth, and other space missions, there are still many thing we could still learn. What we understand so far in astronomy and astrophysics, is barely scratched surface.

We still have lot to learn with medicine, in computers, in engineering, etc.

I am alright with some mysteries remaining unsolved and unrevolved in my lifetime.

What I do object, is to stop learning, stop exploring and investigating.

 

[Polymath257]

How do you know that there is no ending to discovery in science? Is it your guess? Or is it based on examination of questions such as of Planck (as reproduced) in this thread. Or through understanding of Godel’s Incompleteness theorems?

And if you are correct then you are knowingly forever chasing ‘Incompleteness’? Of what value is that?

Note: I am not saying that chasing incompleteness is bad.

Incompleteness only means there are questions that cannot be answered without extending the system.

Usually such questions are uninteresting or we simply don't care enough to make a decision which way we want to assume things go, so they remain unanswered. In math, the Continuum Hypothesis is of this type.

Occasionally, the question has an answer that is more *useful* and that answer is then adopted. The Axiom of Choise is one such in math.

But there are many, many, many questions that do NOT impinge on such unanswerable questions. So even in math, we fully expect an elaboration for as long as humans want to study it.

The same is true for physics. Even if we determine the fundamental laws of physics, we still have to study how they are elaborated in all the different specific situations. So, even if the basic physics has been answered, there will always be *answerable* questions that can be pursued.

 

[We Never Know]

Do you think there is nothing else to learn?

Do you think there are no other mysteries in nature?

Do you think we should simply stop making advances in science and in technology?

Well, I thought Hinduism was more progressive than this.

Unless it is just you. Because if you answer "no" to any of the above question, for Hindu, you are surely one narrow-minded person, if you really think there are nothing more to learn.

I think you have misunderstood Planck's view about mystery, and I think you have misunderstood the article you provided the link in the OP.

There will always be mysteries in nature, some we may know and understand, some of which may never be understood. That's how I view your article.

Science never claimed to know everything. Science never claimed to make no mistakes.

For millennia, people thought the Earth was static and stationary, while the sun and planets moved in our sky, hence the geocentric model of planetary motion. Claudius Ptolemy (flourished in 2nd century CE) explained this "law" on geocentric, and it was popular enough that the Christian adopted this model as "science".

The other less than popular view, first advocated by Hellenistic Greek astronomer, Aristarchus of Samos, 3rd century BCE, postulated that it was the Sun that was stationary while the planets, including the Earth orbited around the Sun, hence the heliocentric model of planetary motion. As I under it some Hindu astronomers, unsuccessfully supported such model, but had no traction with the Hindu societies.

It was only when Nicolaus Copernicus and Galileo Galilei brought the heliocentric back to life, that eventually geocentric model was finally trashed as being wrong.

Even with massive optical and radio telescopes, and those space observatories that orbited around the Earth, and other space missions, there are still many thing we could still learn. What we understand so far in astronomy and astrophysics, is barely scratched surface.

We still have lot to learn with medicine, in computers, in engineering, etc.

I am alright with some mysteries remaining unsolved and unrevolved in my lifetime.

What I do object, is to stop learning, stop exploring and investigating.

I don't think we have even gotten beyond 2% of what there is to learn. Sadly some think we have it all figured out.
In 2000 years we at this time will be nothing more than the ones that we call the bronze ages. Time will tell, you and I won't know. .

 

[We Never Know]

Incompleteness only means there are questions that cannot be answered without extending the system.

Usually such questions are uninteresting or we simply don't care enough to make a decision which way we want to assume things go, so they remain unanswered. In math, the Continuum Hypothesis is of this type.

Occasionally, the question has an answer that is more *useful* and that answer is then adopted. The Axiom of Choise is one such in math.

But there are many, many, many questions that do NOT impinge on such unanswerable questions. So even in math, we fully expect an elaboration for as long as humans want to study it.

The same is true for physics. Even if we determine the fundamental laws of physics, we still have to study how they are elaborated in all the different specific situations. So, even if the basic physics has been answered, there will always be *answerable* questions that can be pursued.

Long story short...
- pre big bang, is it uninteresting or we simply don't care?
- existsnce of a god. Is it uninteresting or we simply don't care?
- how life came to be, is it uninteresting or we simply don't care?

It all boils down to we don't know and there nothing wrong with saying we don't know. Saying we don't know is better than claiming a god did it in my opinion.

 

[Polymath257]

Long story short...
- pre big bang, is it uninteresting or we simply don't care?

It's a very interesting question, but we don't even know if it makes any sense. It is *possible* that time is finite into the past and there *was* no pre-big bang. That isn't my guess, but it is a possibility.

The other problem is finding *evidence* to determine which of the many 'pre-big bang' ideas is correct. Without evidence, it just becomes arm-chair speculation.

- existsnce of a god. Is it uninteresting or we simply don't care?

Some people find it interesting, but put me in the 'don't care' side on this one. I can't imagine how the existence of a deity would affect anything I find of interest.

- how life came to be, is it uninteresting or we simply don't care?

Very interesting, but again finding actual evidence for how life arose isn't so easy. We are beginning to understand the chemistry involved, though.

It all boils down to we don't know and there nothing wrong with saying we don't know. Saying we don't know is better than claiming a god did it in my opinion.

And I would agree. Saying we don't know encourages more investigation. Saying God did it tends to (but doen't have to) stop any further discovery.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Well, I thought Hinduism was more progressive than this.
Unless it is just you. Because if you answer "no" to any of the above question, for Hindu, you are surely one narrow-minded person, if you really think there are nothing more to learn.

Note, Atanu, note what Gnostic is saying. Dont bring Abrahamic obstinacy into Hinduism.

 

[atanu]

Incompleteness only means there are questions that cannot be answered without extending the system.

As per Godel ".....there exist absolutely unsolvable diophantine problems...". This philosophical understanding when backed by proof is revolutionary.

Usually such questions are uninteresting ...

I do not agree. Else, great people such as Godel, Planck, or Hawking would not have discussed it.

You are using semantics to divert attention from the main point of OP that the complete knowledge of universe which includes us is not attainable deterministically.

I am not talking of incremental understanding at all.

 

[atanu]

Do you think there is nothing else to learn?

Do you think there are no other mysteries in nature?

Do you think we should simply stop making advances in science and in technology?

Well, I thought Hinduism was more progressive than this.

Unless it is just you. Because if you answer "no" to any of the above question, for Hindu, you are surely one narrow-minded person, if you really think there are nothing more to learn.

I think you have misunderstood Planck's view about mystery, and I think you have misunderstood the article you provided the link in the OP.

There will always be mysteries in nature, some we may know and understand, some of which may never be understood. That's how I view your article.

Science never claimed to know everything. Science never claimed to make no mistakes.

For millennia, people thought the Earth was static and stationary, while the sun and planets moved in our sky, hence the geocentric model of planetary motion. Claudius Ptolemy (flourished in 2nd century CE) explained this "law" on geocentric, and it was popular enough that the Christian adopted this model as "science".

The other less than popular view, first advocated by Hellenistic Greek astronomer, Aristarchus of Samos, 3rd century BCE, postulated that it was the Sun that was stationary while the planets, including the Earth orbited around the Sun, hence the heliocentric model of planetary motion. As I under it some Hindu astronomers, unsuccessfully supported such model, but had no traction with the Hindu societies.

It was only when Nicolaus Copernicus and Galileo Galilei brought the heliocentric back to life, that eventually geocentric model was finally trashed as being wrong.

Even with massive optical and radio telescopes, and those space observatories that orbited around the Earth, and other space missions, there are still many thing we could still learn. What we understand so far in astronomy and astrophysics, is barely scratched surface.

We still have lot to learn with medicine, in computers, in engineering, etc.

I am alright with some mysteries remaining unsolved and unrevolved in my lifetime.

What I do object, is to stop learning, stop exploring and investigating.

This thread is not about 'incremental learning', which you have been harping on continually. Who ever said that one should stop learning? And as usual there is personal attack, shown in red above.

The thread is about 'absolutely unsolvable logical-arithmetical problem'.

If you have anything to dispute Planck to Godel or Hawking do so directly, without insulting me.

Please.

 

[atanu]

"Science cannot solve the most imaginable mystery of nature.

The imaginable being the supernatural if it exists.

Who said that?

 

[atanu]

Planck was apparently referring to "anomalies" rather than "mysteries".

An anomaly is simply a fact or observation that isn't (readily) explicable in terms of theory.

He's saying that it's apparent that we are a very long way from total understanding as proven by the continual appearance of new anomaly.

I am afraid that "we are a very long way from total understanding....", is not the correct statement in the context of OP.

YMMV.

 

[atanu]

I don't think we have even gotten beyond 2% of what there is to learn. Sadly some think we have it all figured out.
In 2000 years we at this time will be nothing more than the ones that we call the bronze ages. Time will tell, you and I won't know. .

2% or 98% is not the point of the OP. What Planck points to is the problem of knowing a self referential system.

Godel's proof, in the logical-mathematical domain, is also about self reference.

Hawking in his lecture, which I linked, says that the fundamental 'Incompleteness' applies to physics also. He says "What is the relation between Godel’s theorem and whether we can formulate the theory of the universe in terms of a finite number of principles? One connection is obvious. According to the positivist philosophy of science, a physical theory is a mathematical model. So if there are mathematical results that can not be proved, there are physical problems that can not be predicted.".

Godel and the End of Physics
...

It is not about incremental learning. It is about a fundamental problem of knowledge that there will be physical problems that cannot be predicted.

 

[atanu]

To the extent that the laws of physics are a deductive, first order system, Godel's results apply. But I don't think that they are, in fact, such a system.

What? Is Hawking speaking of something other than physics?

Godel and the End of Physics

 

[atanu]

Most honorable Atanu: I propose/move that whom-ever initially brings up ASD in non-ASD debates be deemed automatic loser of the debate.

Is there a second for this motion?

I missed this. I certainly agree. What is ASD, btw?

 

[atanu]

I agree. Mathematical Platonism, and claims that physics is entirely its maths, strike me as so much woo.

I hope that you have read this by now. If already read, ignore.

Godel and the End of Physics

 

[Tiberius]

“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.”


Relativity, the Absolute, the Human Search for Truth: Nobel Laureate and Quantum Theory Originator Max Planck on Science and Mystery

Two things need to be shown here.

1. There is an ultimate mystery of nature.
2. Science cannot solve it.

Both of these claims have so far been made without evidence.

 

[blü 2]

I hope that you have read this by now. If already read, ignore.

Godel and the End of Physics

Thanks for that. I have no argument with what he says about the present state of affairs. I have no illusions as to the vulnerability of even our most tested scientific theories to new, dissonant information, and to the fact that we have no way of telling whether or not any such dissonant information is out there ─ it may be or may not be, and if it is, we may find it or never find it.

But to my mind, none of that alters the value of the scientific method. It's still without a credible competitor when it comes to answering the question, what's true in reality?

And of course truth itself changes as we learn more. It was once true that the earth is flat, because the best minds of the age were agreed that it was. It was once true that fire was due the presence of phlogiston in certain kinds of matter. It was once true that light propagated in the lumeniferous ether. It was once true that the earth's crust was solid, unitary and fixed. It was once true that the Higgs boson was not more than an hypothesis. Now none of those things is true. Truth is not absolute, merely retrospective.

So if we could go forward a hundred years, who knows what the next Stephen Hawking will write as she summarizes physics?

 

[Maximilian]

I did NOT say I have a proof that God does not exist.

And that's why you'll never convert me to Atheism. Why keep trying?

 

[Maximilian]

Two things need to be shown here.

1. There is an ultimate mystery of nature.
2. Science cannot solve it.

Both of these claims have so far been made without evidence.

Right because, as we all know, Science is Omniscient and infallible.

 

[Maximilian]

Your claims of neurotypical or ASD or suffering from autism to anyone who disagrees with you, to be brutally frank, is nothing more than your egotistic delusion.

And esearch shows that 'high functioning autism is an extreme cognitive processing style that predisposes towards Atheism and Agnosticism.'

 

[ecco]

No, "ultimate" is the adjective.

OK

It's been a long time since the third grade.