Science cannot solve the final mystery

[David T]

“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

To paraphrase kikergarrd. "The mystery is not something to be explained but to be experienced"

I think really amazing scientists, artists, religious, philosophical, psychological historical, anthropological, specialists understand this. Its us less gifted that debate.

 

[lostwanderingsoul]

Didn't Jesus die for all man's sins including the present and future?

But you have to believe and have faith so atheists may have a problem.

 

[Audie]

It appears to be outside the scope of our rationality mathematics included, to determine if a rational system of knowledge can achieve a final understanding or not.

We may be reduced to having to oscillate between metaphysical metaphors.

Oscillate as you will, I am wont be going that way myself.

 

[Audie]

But you have to believe and have faith so atheists may have a problem.

Whatever that is supposed to mean

 

[Milton Platt]

“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

What is the final mystery that needs to be solved? How do we know it is the final one?
Science has never dealt in absolutes. It deals with examining available evidence for a proposition and developing a theory that fits the evidence. a theory will change over time if new evidence arrives and must be incorporated into it.

 

[ChristineM]

Just because you underestimate religion doesn't mean that you're right.

So religion has solved the ultimate question? Funny i dont remember any nobel prize being given for such a wondrous fete.

 

[ChristineM]

There will be a lot of surprised atheists when the truth comes out.

Waiting

 

[ChristineM]

It may be a mystery to science but people with religious faith understand.

Clear as day to readers of Douglas Adams

 

[David T]

Clear as day to readers of Douglas Adams

View attachment 30090

no one pays attention to Douglas Adams he has already answered the vast majority of questions raised on RF. And to be honest its not the answers that are important but the quest!!!

Of course we eventually arrive at 42 but thats millions of years in the future. Although by then we will have forgotten the question and ask "what is the question to this answer 42".

 

[blü 2]

It's important to recognize that the 'formal axiomatic system' of physics (or any other area of science) is a mathematical model of reality, not reality itself. A map, not the territory. The value of the map is whether or not it is useful (that is, corresponds to reality) for a given function. A map that includes elevation contours but not roads is probably not useful for getting from point a to point b...

I completely agree. In physics, when the model and reality differ, reality wins.

(That's not the rule in theology, of course.)

 

[atanu]

So religion has solved the ultimate question? Funny i dont remember any nobel prize being given for such a wondrous fete.

What logic.

 

[David T]

I completely agree. In physics, when the model and reality differ, reality wins.

(That's not the rule in theology, of course.)

THAT IS A FACT AND THAT IS A PROBLEM!!!!! although both seem to have an extreme Fetish of understanding nature as a car!!!! Its wierd but hey its guys thats how we are.. I mean was she designed,? Created? Self organized by random accidental chance as dictated by and determined by a set of laws imposed upon her like some slave? Confusion abounds everywhere.

 

[Audie]

What logic.

Well, looks as if this sorry topic is now starting
to swallow its own tail.

 

[osgart]

Not if i can help it.

 

[MonkeyFire]

You couldn't learn knowledge.

 

[atanu]

What is the final mystery that needs to be solved? How do we know it is the final one?
Science has never dealt in absolutes. It deals with examining available evidence for a proposition and developing a theory that fits the evidence. a theory will change over time if new evidence arrives and must be incorporated into it.

Is not physics working on ‘Theory of everything’? I see most posters here (who are possibly not professional scientists but are science fans) think and propose that nothing can be unknown through the scientific method.

This is actually a religious view of science.

Godel’s Incompleteness theorems prove that even in well formulated mathematical domains incompleteness cannot be overcome.

Furthermore, science does not and cannot study the subject ever. This statement invites anger from science fans. But this is what Planck is saying. We are the highest mystery of nature. We are the subject “I”. How can the subject “I” be studied by objectifying it?

“I” can however be known, as per some religious traditions, by introversion of mind from objects to the object less “I”. Those who can still and detach mind from physical and mental objects and rest the attention unwaveringly on the awareness itself, teach that the reality is not discrete.

 

[blü 2]

can it be tenable to believe that experimental truth is the one and only truth that exists? That simply no aesthetic, moral, metaphysical or otherwise putative facts obtain?

I use what's called the 'correspondence' definition of truth ─ a statement is true to the extent that it conforms to / corresponds with / accurately reflects (objective) reality.

What test for truth do you use?

Abiding by this view, for starters, the Atheist who rapes a little kid to death ( or engages in this: Abortistas atacan a católicos que defendían la Catedral de San Juan ) is doing absolutely nothing wrong.

What on earth has atheism to do with raping children to death? Are you claiming that belief in God is a necessary condition precedent to moral behavior? That's simply untrue.

As for whether women should have a say in their own fertility, I'm pro-choice, and I think the balance of rights in Roe v Wade is reasonable. As for whether people should physically harass each other over such questions, no they shouldn't. It's been necessary in several countries to pass laws to keep protesters away from abortion clinics because of their abusive and harassing style.

Exactly why ought we agree to such a conclusion resulting merely from an epistemological limit?

For want of any credible alternative, perhaps?

Isn’t this an indication that you ought to unlock the ambit of your beliefs and incorporate all the other different types of truth that abound?

We can discuss that further when you define 'truth' for me. In my view an objective test for truth is essential. Otherwise we just wallow around like theologians, saying whatever we like.

Science is suffused with assumptions that can never be verified scientifically.

I base my views on three assumptions ─ I have to assume them because they can't be shown to be correct without first assuming they are indeed correct. The first is that a world exists external to the self. The second is that our senses are capable of informing us about that world. The third is that reason is a valid tool. You post on the net so you agree with the first two. I trust you also agree with the third.

What other assumptions do you say science makes?

The epistemology of radical positivism, as a result, abrogates science itself.

Bully for radical positivism, then.

Take, for instance, the concept of induction. It just cannot be scientifically defended.

You think science is ignorant of the nature of induction, and its problems? Science proceeds by empiricism and induction, so nothing protects its conclusions from a new and contradictory datum that we may find tomorrow, or never find. As Brian Cox put it, a law of physics is a statement about physics that hasn't been falsified. This is one reason why experiments must be repeatable and conclusions must be expressed in falsifiable terms.

But for all that, science achieves things that no other branch of reasoned enquiry does. In other words, it works.

Alternatively, as Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorem makes evident, ‘Whatsoever may be bounded cannot explicate itself without referring to that which is without itself - some postulate whose certainty is unobtainable.’

Gödel's incompleteness theorems apply to formal axiomatic systems in maths. The universe is not a formal axiomatic system. The mathematical models which physics makes for various physical relationships are simply models. If reality disagrees, reality wins.

This is just what famed Physicist and Mathematician James Clerk Maxwell alluded to when he came to the conclusion, “Science is incompetent to reason upon the creation of matter itself out of nothing.”

Oh those Presbyterians! Who said the universe was created out of nothing? My own view is that it was created out of, and consists of, mass-energy and all its phenomena reflect qualities of mass-energy. (My view wouldn't be significantly affected if it were shown that the contents of the Big Bang were a salad rather than simply mass-energy.) I suspect time and space exist because energy exists, not vice versa, and if that be correct, there's no problem.

(Actually I greatly admire Maxwell's achievements in physics.)

 

[blü 2]

My friend, I cited Gödel himself writing on implications of Incompleteness theorems. Why bring in Wiki?

To point out that the universe is not an axiomatic system of maths, and hence is unaffected by Gödel's conclusions.

 

[blü 2]

THAT IS A FACT AND THAT IS A PROBLEM!!!!! although both seem to have an extreme Fetish of understanding nature as a car!!!! Its wierd but hey its guys thats how we are.. I mean was she designed,? Created? Self organized by random accidental chance as dictated by and determined by a set of laws imposed upon her like some slave? Confusion abounds everywhere.

You don't like being a biomachine? My own view is that it sure beats the alternative.

 

[David T]

You don't like being a biomachine? My own view is that it sure beats the alternative.

Its certainly a way of seeing. It lacks originality, its certainly hard core orthodoxy and simplistic at best!! Its the "flavor of the day" !!!