Science cannot solve the final mystery

[Polymath257]

This much is good. Gödel has proven that some truths live outside of logic and that we can’t get there from here.

Not precisely what Godel proved, actually. He showed that in any first order recursive theory that is complicated enough to model the natural numbers, there are statements that can neither be proved nor disproved.

In any particular model, there will be truths that cannot be proven. But you have to have a model *first* for this to work. Different models will have different unreachable truths. And the truths common to all models will be exactly those that can be proved.

Furthermore, these results *fail* for second order models (as opposed to first order models). For example, there is only one second order models of the natural numbers and infinitely many first order models.

However, the missing information will be about the self, the subject. Scientific method can help us study objects of mind-senses but cannot help us know the self, the subject.

IMO, Planck’s observation, as noted in the first post of the thread, is most significant It is not about petty arguments.

OK, now that is precisely wrong. The Godel results are about systems that are complicated enough to have self-reference. But the *statements* that cannot be decided are NOT necessarily those that involve self-reference directly.

For example, the Axiom of Choice, the Continuum Hypothesis, Martin's Axiom, etc. None of these have anything to do with self-reference.

In the case of the laws of physics, I disagree that they would be purely mathematical (and thereby not a deductive system). There are *two* parts to any physical theory: the mathematical aspect and the correspondence between that math and observations (reality). Most of the questions that arise in the math will have NO correspondence with observation. So those are irrelevant to the physics.

In other words, most of the undecidable questions in the math will have no bearing on anything observable, and hence will be irrelevant to understanding the universe.

 

[Polymath257]

It is very difficult for a philosophical naturalist to accept science-math, when the evidence-proof do not support their ideology.

Or for a non-materialist who mis-applies well-known results for their own ideology.

IMO, in you are trivialising the point.

And I am not. The Godel result only shows there are undecidable statements. We already know that about the universe. It isn't news. The Godels results do NOT say that these unknowlable results have to be about self-consciousness.

The OP is about Planck who says that science cannot solve the ultimate mystery of nature because we are part of nature.

This means that ‘we’ (the subject) must remain unknown to science.
...

I think the term 'ultimate nature' is too vague to be a usable concept.

 

[charlie sc]

Atheists worship themselves and the genius of humanity which is able to positively conclude that there can be no Creator

How exactly do atheists worship themselves or the the genius of humanity? I’d sure like to know.

To give you some help, I can give you some examples of how theists worship. They pray and some of them bow down. They have rituals(depending on the religion and denomination) and thank their god(s) usually with a prayer or some gift thingie. Ok, your turn.

 

[atanu]

In any particular model, there will be truths that cannot be proven. But you have to have a model *first* for this to work. Different models will have different unreachable truths. And the truths common to all models will be exactly those that can be proved.

I do not understand how this is relevant.

OK, now that is precisely wrong. The Godel results are about systems that are complicated enough to have self-reference......

In other words, most of the undecidable questions in the math will have no bearing on anything observable, and hence will be irrelevant to understanding the universe.

This is about Planck's observation in OP that the ultimate mystery includes the ‘self’.

 

[atanu]

Or for a non-materialist who mis-applies well-known results for their own ideology.

I do not agree. In this thread, we have a clear cut case of materialist worldview clouding a simple conclusion.

I have shown Planck saying: 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.

I have shown Godel himself writing: Either mathematics is incompletable in this sense, that its evident axioms can never be comprised in a finite rule, that is to say, 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 . . .

And I have shown Hawking extending the Godel's Incompleteness to Physics:
Godel and the End of Physics

That is, a model can be arbitrarily detailed and can contain an arbitrary amount of information without affecting the universes they describe. But we are not angels, who view the universe from the outside. Instead, we and our models are both part of the universe we are describing. Thus a physical theory is self referencing, like in Godel’s theorem. One might therefore expect it to be either inconsistent or incomplete.

...

I have simply re-iterated what all three scientists say. They all point that the human mind-self being part of the system, a physical theory of the system will be inconsistent or incomplete.

I have nothing more to add to this thread. So bye and best wishes.

 

[cladking]

I have nothing more to add to this thread. So bye and best wishes.

I think you and the scientists are correct but, I believe this specific problem can be solved once its nature is understood. Specifically it is the tool we are using to learn about nature, build models, and think; it is language that links us to everything. We may not need our language to formulate an experiment and to model its results.

 

[Audie]

It is very difficult for a philosophical naturalist to accept science-math, when the evidence-proof do not support their ideology.
...

Your terminology is rather, unique.

Care to translate?

 

[Audie]

I have nothing more to add to this thread. So bye and best wishes.

Ah never mind then, I missed where you'd declared
victory and abandoned the field.

 

[cladking]

How exactly do atheists worship themselves or the the genius of humanity? I’d sure like to know.

By seeing only what confirms their belief and their belief in their own omniscience.

No matter how many ways I answer this question they will never see the answer. It doesn't fit their beliefs so it's invisible.


Our race has become homo omnisciencis not because we know everything (or anything at all) but because each individual believes he does. None is holier than thou than a scientist and no scientist is holier than those with no understanding of metaphysics. When you believe science works through magic you're a God that does magic. It's virtual omnipotence and you can even build a computer game where you are virtually omnipotent.

Once we have the unified field theory scientists will each ascend to Godhood. In the meantime we have semi-gods and demi-gods.

Nevermind that scientist in 75 or 300 years will think we're primitives because this is the here and now, even if we don't really understand the nature of "here" or "now".

 

[charlie sc]

By seeing only what confirms their belief and their belief in their own omniscience.

So worshiping, for you, is seeing?

Are you sure you’re using the right word?

 

[Polymath257]

I do not agree. In this thread, we have a clear cut case of materialist worldview clouding a simple conclusion.

I have shown Planck saying: 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.

But can we understand enough to have the basics? Almost certainly.

I have shown Godel himself writing: Either mathematics is incompletable in this sense, that its evident axioms can never be comprised in a finite rule, that is to say, 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 . . .

And yes, I think there are absolutely unsolvable Diophantine problems.

And I have shown Hawking extending the Godel's Incompleteness to Physics:
Godel and the End of Physics

http://www.hawking.org.uk/godel-and-the-end-of-physics.html

Which is based on the assumption that every unsolvable math problem leads to an unsolvable physics problem.

That is, a model can be arbitrarily detailed and can contain an arbitrary amount of information without affecting the universes they describe. But we are not angels, who view the universe from the outside. Instead, we and our models are both part of the universe we are describing. Thus a physical theory is self referencing, like in Godel’s theorem. One might therefore expect it to be either inconsistent or incomplete.

...

Yes, and we already know that any theory will have to be incomplete. So?

I have simply re-iterated what all three scientists say. They all point that the human mind-self being part of the system, a physical theory of the system will be inconsistent or incomplete.

I have nothing more to add to this thread. So bye and best wishes.

When you have actually worked through the details of Godel's results and have actually worked with a viable physical theory, then you will be able to judge whether those physicists knew enough math to understand the Godel statement or whether the mathematicians understood enough physics to justify the application of Godel's results to it.

 

[cladking]

So worshiping, for you, is seeing?

Are you sure you’re using the right word?

Excellent! This is a start.

There are many definitions of "seeing". Check an unabridged dictionary if you don't believe it. Each person has a specific meaning in mind when they say or hear the word "seeing" and our job is to try to understand what the speaker means by each word. Hint; the speaker's meaning might not even appear in the dictionary despite the hundreds of definitions because we don't all speak our confused language real goodly. Even the best make errors and use improper grammar or words incorrectly. It's very easy to get hung up on specific definitions and descend into playing word games. It's very easy to even have a conversation with more than one topic. We don't notice the faults in language because we think in language, don't pay attention, and language is often used poorly. Add in the fact that we also hear what we expect, feel what we expect, and can even taste and smell what we expect and it's a wonder communication ever occurs.

You are using the definition of "to see" that is synonymous with "to observe". Of course every good scientist is supposed to observe and observing something is not "worship". I am using the definition "to look" or "to glance" or something like "to stare". We all have input in our visual range which normally includes everything in front of us but the we attend to only some things and don't even move our eyes to "look" at others. We don't observe anomalies (things we don't understand) but rather we tend to just "look" and attend to nothing. When we do attend (observe) we typically attend only to those things that are expected and understood. We overlook far more than we observe all the time pretty much. There are of course specific exceptions for most individuals.

Seeing our beliefs is certainly a form of self worship. Who died and left only our own beliefs as the only reality?

 

[charlie sc]

Excellent! This is a start.

There are many definitions of "seeing". Check an unabridged dictionary if you don't believe it. Each person has a specific meaning in mind when they say or hear the word "seeing" and our job is to try to understand what the speaker means by each word. Hint; the speaker's meaning might not even appear in the dictionary despite the hundreds of definitions because we don't all speak our confused language real goodly. Even the best make errors and use improper grammar or words incorrectly. It's very easy to get hung up on specific definitions and descend into playing word games. It's very easy to even have a conversation with more than one topic. We don't notice the faults in language because we think in language, don't pay attention, and language is often used poorly. Add in the fact that we also hear what we expect, feel what we expect, and can even taste and smell what we expect and it's a wonder communication ever occurs.

You are using the definition of "to see" that is synonymous with "to observe". Of course every good scientist is supposed to observe and observing something is not "worship". I am using the definition "to look" or "to glance" or something like "to stare". We all have input in our visual range which normally includes everything in front of us but the we attend to only some things and don't even move our eyes to "look" at others. We don't observe anomalies (things we don't understand) but rather we tend to just "look" and attend to nothing. When we do attend (observe) we typically attend only to those things that are expected and understood. We overlook far more than we observe all the time pretty much. There are of course specific exceptions for most individuals.

Seeing our beliefs is certainly a form of self worship. Who died and left only our own beliefs as the only reality?

Weird. Then what do you call when theists bow down in prayer and praise/give thanks to god?

 

[cladking]

We all see only our own beliefs.

Theists KNOW that faith is a belief.

 

[charlie sc]

We all see only our own beliefs.

Theists KNOW that faith is a belief.

You understand that, according to your logic and usage of words, theists are going against their god because they’re worshiping everything else and false idols.

 

[cladking]

You understand that, according to your logic and usage of words, theists are going against their god because they’re worshiping everything else and false idols.

Oh, you're suggesting they can't glance at a science text because that's worshiping a false idol?

I don't believe any religion forbids having beliefs outside of that religion. Some are pretty strict but nobody can function strictly on faith. Even scientists get hungry, have sex, and take vacations.

 

[atanu]

I think you and the scientists are correct but, I believe this specific problem can be solved once its nature is understood. Specifically it is the tool we are using to learn about nature, build models, and think; it is language that links us to everything. We may not need our language to formulate an experiment and to model its results.

A very good point.

 

[charlie sc]

Oh, you're suggesting they can't glance at a science text because that's worshiping a false idol?

Oh, so now it's a glance. Isn't it still worship?

I don't believe any religion forbids having beliefs outside of that religion.

Ummm, yes they do. Idolatry - Wikipedia

Some are pretty strict but nobody can function strictly on faith. Even scientists get hungry, have sex, and take vacations.

So we're talking about faith now, not worship?

 

[ecco]

All we have is logic and facts. These are tiny tiny little tools to use against a sea of ignorance but they are the only life preserver (and, ironically the only tool provided by nature for survival).

I agree logic and facts are tools against ignorance. When are you going to present some?

You can't recognize the facts and logic I am continually putting forth because they go against your beliefs. It doesn't mean I'm illogical or not presenting evidence, only that you can't recognize it.

What evidence have you presented? At this point I'm not even sure what argument you are trying to support.

 

[ecco]

Atheists don't so much not believe in God as they believe there is no God.

Why can't you understand there are even more types of atheists than there are atheists.

That is a ridiculous comment to make since you, yourself, just defined what atheists believe. However, to be more accurate: Atheists believe there are no gods. Plural, lower case. But just to be clear, that includes what you refer to as God and Muslims refer to as Allah and Romans referred to as Atlas.

Most have some kind of conception of the God(s) in which they don't believe. How do you believe something doesn't exist without defining what it is that doesn't exist?

Do you believe Atlas exists? Do you believe Shiva exists? How about Oku and Dâyuni'sï?

You believe that the god that you believe in is the one and only god. Everyone believes that the god they believe in is the one and only god. That's pretty silly, isn't it?