Science cannot solve the final mystery

[ppp]

Then my claim that scientific knowledge only explains 5% of the known universe stands. Report: Modern Physics Explains Only 5% of Universe

?? I don't see the connection that you are drawing. Are you saying that 5% of the mass is the equivalent to 5% of the knowledge?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

?? I don't see the connection that you are drawing. Are you saying that 5% of the mass is the equivalent to 5% of the knowledge?

No silly, I am not equating mass with knowledge, I am explaining that if only 5% of the universe can be observed by science, that is the maximum that science can presently explain.

Report: Modern Physics Explains Only 5% of Universe

 

[Ben Dhyan]

They are only still talking about mass. You are confusing knowledge and calculated masses, as if they were one and the same.

There are more to the universe than the masses. The percentages are only calculation on observations from the WMAP and Planck mapping of CMBR.

We still have actually physically explore any other planets other than Earth and other Solar System's planets. Our two most distant objects may have reached interstellar space (referring to Voyager 1 and Voyager 2), but it will lose all power before it reach any star and planet outside of our Solar System. Plus these spacecrafts are unmanned and they have never actually explore the surfaces of other planets.

I don't think we have explore even 1% of our Milky Way, let alone the rest of the Universe. Knowledge of even 1% would be exaggeration.

No, Ben, Modern Physics haven't explain 5% of the Universe, only 5% of masses of ordinary matters.

How many times must I explain your mistake, before you realize you should stop making erroneous claims?

How else do you measure the fraction of the universe that is observable to science if not mass? The fact remains that less than 5% of the total is explained by science!

Report: Modern Physics Explains Only 5% of Universe

 

[ppp]

No silly, I am not equating mass with knowledge, I am explaining that if only 5% of the universe can be observed by science, that is the maximum that science can presently explain.

Report: Modern Physics Explains Only 5% of Universe

Shouting won't help.

If 5% of the universe contains 950 type of particles, and 95% of the universe contains 50 type of particles that we haven't seen before, then we have knowledge of 95% of the type of things.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Shouting won't help.

If 5% of the universe contains 950 type of particles, and 95% of the universe contains 50 type of particles that we haven't seen before, then we have knowledge of 95% of the type of things.

You are being silly, just hypothetical made up nonsense!

 

[gnostic]

How else do you measure the fraction of the universe that is observable to science if not mass? The fact remains that less than 5% of the total is explained by science!

Report: Modern Physics Explains Only 5% of Universe

That's the nature of observational and measuring technology, using instruments of WMAP and Planck, and computers from NASA and ESA, fractions can be measured, estimated and calculated.

I don't know how NASA and ESA do their number crunching (and I don't work for them), so you are going beyond what I can answer. You will need someone who worked more knowledge than that I possess.

Anyway you didn't answer my question. Can you answer and explain the same questions you have ask me?

So explain the composition of dark energy in terms of it constituent parts and its structure? The same question for dark matter?

Can you answer that without changing the subject?

And here is claim you have made:

So as evolution continues, science (knowledge) will increase until the very goal of science may be the realization of God, the 100%.

A large part of NASA and ESA works are using computers to detect, measure, calculate their data.

You state the goal of science - "may be the realization of God, the 100%", how do you come with 100%?

Do you always make up numbers and percentages with no basis on reality?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

That's the nature of observational and measuring technology, using instruments of WMAP and Planck, and computers from NASA and ESA, fractions can be measured, estimated and calculated.

I don't know how NASA and ESA do their number crunching (and I don't work for them), so you are going beyond what I can answer. You will need someone who worked more knowledge than that I possess.

Anyway you didn't answer my question. Can you answer and explain the same questions you have ask me?

​

Can you answer that without changing the subject?

And here is claim you have made:



A large part of NASA and ESA works are using computers to detect, measure, calculate their data.

You state the goal of science - "may be the realization of God, the 100%", how do you come with 100%?

Do you always make up numbers and percentages with no basis on reality?

No, God is all there is, ie. panetheism. A 100% of all that exists is all that is. Are you changing the subject?

 

[ppp]

You are being silly, just hypothetical made up nonsense!

You're being silly. Just denying for the sake of denying.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

You're being silly. Just denying for the sake of denying.

Not so, you appear to be not accepting that science is only able to explain the physical matter 5% mass of the universe, and that not perfectly, the 95% rest of the mass of the universe is yet beyond scientific explanation.

 

[gnostic]

No, God is all there is, ie. panetheism. A 100% of all that exists is all that is. Are you changing the subject?

I have already answered your questions in regards to the “5%”. It is only fair that you answer some of my questions.

You were the one who brought up “God” in the first place in your reply...

So as evolution continues, science (knowledge) will increase until the very goal of science may be the realization of God, the 100%.

...and I didn’t make you bring up God, you did at your own volition, so I think I am within my right to ask you this question.

How did come with imaginary number of “100%” percentage in the “goal of science” - “the realization of God”?

This “No, God is all there is, ie. panetheism. A 100% of all that exists is all that is.” is not the answer I was asking for. I didn’t ask you why you brought up “God”, my question was the number you brought up. I am still asking, where you get this imaginary “100%” claim from?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

I have already answered your questions in regards to the “5%”. It is only fair that you answer some of my questions.

You were the one who brought up “God” in the first place in your reply...

​

...and I didn’t make you bring up God, you did at your own volition, so I think I am within my right to ask you this question.

How did come with imaginary number of “100%” percentage in the “goal of science” - “the realization of God”?

This “No, God is all there is, ie. panetheism. A 100% of all that exists is all that is.” is not the answer I was asking for. I am still asking where you get this imaginary “100%” claim from?

So you are now agreeing with me that science only explains 5% of the mass of the universe that is knowable, the remaining 95% mass of the universe can not yet be explained by science?

 

[gnostic]

So you are now agreeing with me that science only explains 5% of the mass of the universe that is knowable, the remaining 95% mass of the universe can not yet be explained by science?

You still avoiding my questions...I am not asking you question about why you believe in God.

I am still waiting for to answer where you got the number "100%" from?

Don't you understand English?

You brought God into the picture, and you had said :

"...until the very goal of science may be the realization of God, the 100%"​

You are avoiding my real question about your number. Where did you get the 100% from?

Did you invent this number, by pulling out of the hat? Or did it come from real calculation?

Stop changing the subject.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

You still avoiding my questions...I am not asking you question about why you believe in God.

I am still waiting for to answer where you got the number "100%" from?

Don't you understand English?

You brought God into the picture, and you had said :

"...until the very goal of science may be the realization of God, the 100%"​

You are avoiding my real question about your number. Where did you get the 100% from?

Did you invent this number, by pulling out of the hat? Or did it come from real calculation?

Stop changing the subject.

I'm not changing the subject, I am responding to your post #1013gnostic, Today at 12:24 PM.
Just as soon as you acknowledge agreement with paarsurrey and myself that science only explains 5% of the mass of the universe that is knowable, the remaining 95% mass of the universe can not yet be explained by science, I will be happy to respond to a whole new subject you are raising, that of a completely different comment of mine concerning 'God', not before.

 

[gnostic]

I'm not changing the subject, I am responding to your post #1013gnostic, Today at 12:24 PM.
Just as soon as you acknowledge agreement with paarsurrey and myself that science only explains 5% of the mass of the universe that is knowable, the remaining 95% mass of the universe can not yet be explained by science, I will be happy to respond to a whole new subject you are raising, that of a completely different comment of mine concerning 'God', not before.

And I have already answered your questions, and explained what in the current sciences in regarding to the cosmology. And I have already answer your questions several times.

And you are wrong (and paarsurrey too), NASA & ESA didn’t leave the other 95%, unexplained.

They have explained that Dark Matters are responsible for the formation of the galaxy and keeping the galaxy together. While Dark Energy is responsible for the expansion of the universe, as explained in the Big Bang theory (in the late 1990, the lambda cold dark matter model).

That’s not “unexplained”. You and paarsurrey are both wrong.

Now please, answer my question about where you got the silly idea that science will have “100%” realisation of god?

Where did you get this number from?

I have asked you questions, several times, and every time you avoid them, like some dishonest lawyer or dodgy car salesman.

 

[shunyadragon]

I seriously question any anecdotal estimate of the scientific knowledge of our physical universe. Percentages of what we can see of our physical universe has no relationship to the scientific knowledge of our universe. this is a foolish meme like the urban myth of the anecdotal claims of how much of our brain we use. There is no objective way to measure of judge the amount of scientific knowledge, because as far as knowledge goes we do not know what would be 25%, 50% or the illusion of 100% of knowledge of our universe.

As far as the Dark Matter and Energy of our universe not seeing is not a measure of the scientific knowledge. Over the years our knowledge is increasing, but alas we still cannot see it. There are many 'things' science cannot see as in Quantum Mechanics, but our scientific knowledge of Quantum Mechanics is increasing over time.

 

[shunyadragon]

No silly, I am not equating mass with knowledge, I am explaining that if only 5% of the universe can be observed by science, that is the maximum that science can presently explain.

Report: Modern Physics Explains Only 5% of Universe

NEWSWARS is not a reliable scientific journal. There is no relationship between what we can see in our physical universe and our scientific knowledge can explain concerning our universe.

The scientific knowledge of Dark energy, Dark Matter and Quantum MEchanics is increasing over time regardless of what we can 'see.'

 

[gnostic]

I seriously question any anecdotal estimate of the scientific knowledge of our physical universe. Percentages of what we can see of our physical universe has no relationship to the scientific knowledge of our universe. this is a foolish meme like the urban myth of the anecdotal claims of how much of our brain we use. There is no objective way to measure of judge the amount of scientific knowledge, because as far as knowledge goes we do not know what would be 25%, 50% or the illusion of 100% of knowledge of our universe.

YES!

Exactly.

The 5% is only talking about the measured and calculated masses of ordinary matters in the Observable Universe; it is not talking about 5% scientific knowledge of the Universe.

That's what neither paarsurrey, nor ben, understand.

Then, in one of ben's replies, he make claim about the 100% realization of God.

I keep asking where this number/percent comes from, but he kept evading my questions...by asking questions that I have already answer several times.

I am getting frustrated with his lack of cooperation, dodging my valid questions.

NASA and ESA got their numbers from measurement and calculation of the observation of the CMBR.

Where ben got his 100% from, by his non-answering, I get the feeling that he MADE IT UP, with no basis in reality, and certainly not from scientific observation!

What you wrote is exactly how I see the faulty thinking of paarsurrey's and ben's claim, where they confused the 5% presented by astrophysics' measurement of the Universe's mass with scientific knowledge.

I think you said it better than I have.

 

[Yazata]

“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.”

"Science cannot solve the ultimate mystery of nature."

I agree very emphatically. It's why I'm an agnostic.

But, that being said, I'm not convinced that there is a single "ultimate mystery of nature". There may be lots of them. The number of mysteries we perceive seems to be a function of what questions we choose to ask. It's probably the case that mysteries vary in how ultimate they are. And perhaps they do all converge on a single ultimate final question. I'm still undecided on that one.

Science is quite effective in addressing the little mysteries we might say. But it seems to be out of its depth entirely when it comes to the big ones. Science is very good with questions like 'how do birds fly'. It answers in terms of the principles of aerodynamics. Science can even derive the principles of aerodynamics from more fundamental physics like fluid mechanics.

But when we ask why there are principles of fundamental physics in the first place, why they are what they are and not something else, or how they guide or constrain the behavior of physical events everywhere in time and space. all we seem to get is "That's just how it is". Which leaves the biggest questions just hanging. After answering questions all over the place, science suddenly throws up its hands and walks away.

So science is clearly incomplete in my opinion. What's more, I doubt very much if it can ever provide a complete account of reality.

"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 agree somewhat. Science and the practice of science depends on a host of a-priori assumptions. So it's going to be very difficult for science to address its own most fundamental assumptions without circularity.

 

[ppp]

Not so, you appear to be not accepting that science is only able to explain the physical matter 5% mass of the universe, and that not perfectly, the 95% rest of the mass of the universe is yet beyond scientific explanation.

Aha. You are using mass and knowledge interchangeably.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

And I have already answered your questions, and explained what in the current sciences in regarding to the cosmology. And I have already answer your questions several times.

And you are wrong (and paarsurrey too), NASA & ESA didn’t leave the other 95%, unexplained.

They have explained that Dark Matters are responsible for the formation of the galaxy and keeping the galaxy together. While Dark Energy is responsible for the expansion of the universe, as explained in the Big Bang theory (in the late 1990, the lambda cold dark matter model).

That’s not “unexplained”. You and paarsurrey are both wrong.

Now please, answer my question about where you got the silly idea that science will have “100%” realisation of god?

Where did you get this number from?

I have asked you questions, several times, and every time you avoid them, like some dishonest lawyer or dodgy car salesman.

Haha, so NASA's explanation that dark matters are responsible for the formation of galaxies is the equivalent in knowledge as science's explanation of the 5% physical matter!
With a claim like that, you can't be serious and rather are avoiding admission that science does not understand the 95% like they do the 5%.

I will not play games with you, until you admit you were wrong, I do not intend to deal with your dishonesty.