Science cannot solve the final mystery

[atanu]

... the first kiss ....

Please don’t impel me to another birth by reminding and re-kindling that longing ....
...

Desires and longings rule us and make the universe what it is — apparently like honey but actually binding and painful.

But why this all pervasive unbearable longing? Isn’t this part of the ultimate mystery? Who longs? The body longs? No, it cannot. The brain longs?

There is someone or something that is always hungry. What is that?

 

[atanu]

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

That is misinformation.

Even in well formulated logical-mathematical realms-systems, incompleteness cannot be overcome. What to talk of Self and Universe?

 

[gnostic]

As my first reply received no replies, let me try again.

There is no final mystery...not for science.

Meaning. There will be always be mysteries, and there will always be more questions than answers.

Even with our current understanding of Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, there are some parts of these respective fields, that we are yet to observe and test.

Maybe we will be finally test those unanswered mysteries (in Relativity or QM) some years or decades or centuries from now, when our technology meet up with our inquiring minds (eg the still theoretical parts of GR & QM). Maybe there are no possible answers, because they are ultimately unobservable and untestable.

But the things with science, they have never delve with absolutes, because there no such thing things as “absolute”.

When science look for evidences, they are compared to the hypothesis, to see if the observe reality (evidences) meet up with the specifications or premises of the hypothesis.

If yes, then there is a probability is true. If no, then the probability it is false, and when that happen, then either the hypothesis is wrong, or the hypothesis was never falsifiable in the first place, especially if there are no evidences whatsoever; so you either try to understand what went wrong with the hypothesis or you discard the hypothesis altogether.

That’s how science work. The evidences are based on the limited observation that are available to us.

If we looked at the history of astronomy, it is started with star gazing with the naked eye, ie no telescopes because it wasn’t invented until Galileo’s time. The telescopes enabled the astronomers to see more than the times when they didn’t have telescope.

But the telescopes constructed then (telescopes before 1919) only give us limited range of vision. Objects like Andromeda, Triangulum, Virgo A, and some other objects were viewed as nebulas hence misidentifications, not as galaxies of their own. Before 1919, there was only one galaxy, the Milky Way.

In 1919, Edwin Hubble looked through the newly built and corrected our past observations of Andromeda and Triangulum are galaxies , not nebula. The Hooker Telescope was the largest optical telescope at that time, extending the range of vision. The universe became a lot larger than the Milky Way.

Throughout the 20th century, bigger and better optical telescopes were built for observatories. But what we can view are still limited, and eventually we found another way to extend how we observe and measure even more distant stars and galaxies, by using and detecting EM, like infrared, X-ray, microwave, gamma rays. Hence, the invention of radio telescopes.

And still both optical and radio telescopes were limited, then they started launching into space, orbiting unmanned space observatories, both with optical and radio capabilities. That extended our vision more than ever before, but that vision is still limited. We still observe and detect if there are life on other planets outside of our solar system.

On every occasions our technology improved a bit, we learn bit more, but what we have managed to learn, it is limited, so there are always more to learn.

Our knowledge in astronomy have been incremental, coming in stages. 1919 opened up the universe to us, but even with our current knowledge and current technology, we only just got started.

This is why with science, there will always be mysteries and the truth behind to discover.

It is never ending, and therefore there are no absolute certainty, and there is no such thing as “final mystery” or “ultimate mystery”.

Planck understand this. We can only understand nature through observation, but the discoveries or answers we may find, may only be small.

The only people who talk about absolute, ultimate and perfection, are people in philosophies and in religions and spirituality.

 

[David T]

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

Which leads to the reality there is no such thing as math realism literally. Although the mental hospitals, are filled with people convinced thats not true. Cant convince them out of it.

 

[David T]

As my first reply received no replies, let me try again.

There is no final mystery...not for science.

Meaning. There will be always be mysteries, and there will always be more questions than answers.

Even with our current understanding of Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, there are some parts of these respective fields, that we are yet to observe and test.

Maybe we will be finally test those unanswered mysteries (in Relativity or QM) some years or decades or centuries from now, when our technology meet up with our inquiring minds (eg the still theoretical parts of GR & QM). Maybe there are no possible answers, because they are ultimately unobservable and untestable.

But the things with science, they have never delve with absolutes, because there no such thing things as “absolute”.

When science look for evidences, they are compared to the hypothesis, to see if the observe reality (evidences) meet up with the specifications or premises of the hypothesis.

If yes, then there is a probability is true. If no, then the probability it is false, and when that happen, then either the hypothesis is wrong, or the hypothesis was never falsifiable in the first place, especially if there are no evidences whatsoever; so you either try to understand what went wrong with the hypothesis or you discard the hypothesis altogether.

That’s how science work. The evidences are based on the limited observation that are available to us.

If we looked at the history of astronomy, it is started with star gazing with the naked eye, ie no telescopes because it wasn’t invented until Galileo’s time. The telescopes enabled the astronomers to see more than the times when they didn’t have telescope.

But the telescopes constructed then (telescopes before 1919) only give us limited range of vision. Objects like Andromeda, Triangulum, Virgo A, and some other objects were viewed as nebulas hence misidentifications, not as galaxies of their own. Before 1919, there was only one galaxy, the Milky Way.

In 1919, Edwin Hubble looked through the newly built and corrected our past observations of Andromeda and Triangulum are galaxies , not nebula. The Hooker Telescope was the largest optical telescope at that time, extending the range of vision. The universe became a lot larger than the Milky Way.

Throughout the 20th century, bigger and better optical telescopes were built for observatories. But what we can view are still limited, and eventually we found another way to extend how we observe and measure even more distant stars and galaxies, by using and detecting EM, like infrared, X-ray, microwave, gamma rays. Hence, the invention of radio telescopes.

And still both optical and radio telescopes were limited, then they started launching into space, orbiting unmanned space observatories, both with optical and radio capabilities. That extended our vision more than ever before, but that vision is still limited. We still observe and detect if there are life on other planets outside of our solar system.

On every occasions our technology improved a bit, we learn bit more, but what we have managed to learn, it is limited, so there are always more to learn.

Our knowledge in astronomy have been incremental, coming in stages. 1919 opened up the universe to us, but even with our current knowledge and current technology, we only just got started.

This is why with science, there will always be mysteries and the truth behind to discover.

It is never ending, and therefore there are no absolute certainty, and there is no such thing as “final mystery” or “ultimate mystery”.

Planck understand this. We can only understand nature through observation, but the discoveries or answers we may find, may only be small.

The only people who talk about absolute, ultimate and perfection, are people in philosophies and in religions and spirituality.

"But the things with science, they have never delve with absolutes, because there no such thing things as “absolute"

Oh great you opened the door for literal resurrection. Thanks just one more thing i have to contend with on the wacky bigfoot is real aspect in religion.

 

[Audie]

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.

OMG yet another who goes forth to battle the
grim chimera of "scienrism".

 

[gnostic]

Oh great you opened the door for literal resurrection. Thanks just one more thing i have to contend with on the wacky bigfoot is real aspect in religion.

Wow!

Seriously...?

I gave you a big example on history of astronomy, but you bring up bigfoot and resurrection. I was only referring to the natural, as in the mystery of nature, not the supernatural or the paranormal. How on earth did that happen?

This is straw man.

...unless that post was just sarcasm or a joke...then (belated) very funny. Ha, ha.

 

[Thief]

the mystery that we are trying to solve.”

but your proposal isn't the final mystery

when we get 'there'.....we get to ask God about that first pronouncement

I AM...!!!

I want to know HOW He became the First

 

[David T]

Wow!

Seriously...?

I gave you a big example on history of astronomy, but you bring up bigfoot and resurrection. I was only referring to the natural, as in the mystery of nature, not the supernatural or the paranormal. How on earth did that happen?

This is straw man.

...unless that post was just sarcasm or a joke...then (belated) very funny. Ha, ha.

i easnt saying you dont be silly i k ow ypu arent an idiot. Here is the quote
But the things with science, they have never delve with absolutes, because there no such thing things as “absolutes".

What about death is that an absolute? See the problem?

 

[blü 2]

Which leads to the reality there is no such thing as math realism literally. Although the mental hospitals, are filled with people convinced thats not true. Cant convince them out of it.

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

 

[Milton Platt]

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.

No, it is not a religious view of science. A religious view would not even be science. Religion requires adherence to dogma, not a seeking of facts. i doubt we will ever know virtually everything. So what? Planck said that over 80 years ago,. His opinions are not a scientific treatise.

I have no idea what you are talking about in your last sentence or how it is relevant to what science can or cannot know.

 

[atanu]

There is no final mystery...not for science.

You believe so.

But the things with science, they have never delve with absolutes, because there no such thing things as “absolute”.

That is the most ‘absolute ‘ statement of this thread.

 

[Milton Platt]

Isn’t that your dogma?

Is what my dogma?

noun

1. a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

You believe so.



That is the most ‘absolute ‘ statement of this thread.

Except for the statement from Plank asserting that the only absolute is that

"We see in all modern scientific advances that the solution of one problem only unveils the mystery of another. Each hilltop that we reach discloses to us another hilltop beyond. We must accept this as a hard-and-fast irrefutable fact…

It's only a hard-and-fast fact that each hilltop reveals another hilltop...until it doesn't...or until it reveals, once we've gone all the way around the globe, one of the hills we've already surmounted...

 

[night912]

It doesn't matter what anyone believes. The truth will come out in the end.

It's not the end yet, so how do you know that that is the truth? And if that's just you believe, then it doesn't matter.

 

[night912]

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.

You may have understood the individual meaning of those words being used, but you misunderstood what was said.

 

[Aupmanyav]

The last frontier of science is human consciousness. Science can explain the tiny details of matter, as well as the origins of the largest galaxies. However, there is no consensus definition for consciousness, even though consciousness is the tool which does all the observing and theorizing.

What is so problematic about consciousness? Even robots and home systems use it now. It is storing information, getting back the necessary information when required and performing actions according to it. Living beings (including vegetation) has been doing that for billions of years. Human brain has a 100 billion neurons and even more axons and dendrites connecting it to others neurons. Brain is capable of doing tens of time more than what it is called to do. Short posts make the questions clear. Long posts befuddle the issues.

 

[atanu]

Is what my dogma?

Your statement ‘Religion requires adherence to dogma,’, imo, is a dogma too.

...

 

[Native]

A religious view would not even be science. Religion requires adherence to dogma, not a seeking of facts.

Your point just shows how the heritage of the "Abrahamic Religions" have lost it´s cosmological meanings. You can find several other religion which, for instants, describes astronomical issues very significantly. and even have a Story of Creation which is scientific valid if you understand the mythical symbolism.

 

[night912]

Exactly why I lack a belief. Personally, I'm not sure any "truth" will be known. Maybe, if there is any existence after death, we will be just as ignorant of the truth as when we were born. Or not. Still what you and I currently believe will not alter the truth one bit. So why invest in any belief?

There are some "truth" that can be known.

Ex: I