Science cannot solve the final mystery

[Polymath257]

This was already been addressed at great length earlier.

And that was torn down here: Science cannot solve the final mystery

 

[Skreeper]

Where do you think morals come from?
-are they taught?
-are they learned?
-are they found?
-are they programmened in our DNA?
-are they just something some stumble upon?
-are they god given?
-not god given?
-does everyone have them?
-how does one get morals?
-etc.

They are derived from personal values and preferences of each individual.

There is no single source. Morality is a complex system, an attempt from humans to find some basic rules that insure that all humans can live a good life.

 

[atanu]

Actually, that is part of the thing here: there are no such formal axioms for physics. Only math and logic (so far) have formal axiom structures. And the fact that there are (informal) mechanisms for changing our views of physical laws makes them NOT an axiomatic system at all.

Furthermore, it is clear that many physical laws are based in second order logical (properties of properties) and are thereby not subject to the Godel results.

So we have two aspects that avoid the Godelian issues: lack of a formal axiom system (especially one that is recurrently defined) and second order logic as opposed to first order logic.

Okay. This is the first post that has some connection to OP.

But your view is evidently wrong. I will write four points.

1. First is Planck's view itself. Planck knows that we, as part of nature, trying to understand nature is a self referential system which is beyond solution. It is a recursive loop. So Planck, a physicist says "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.”

2. Great Godel himself anticipated your trick. So he gave a disjunctive conclusion based on his theorems: 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 of the type specified . . . (Gödel 1995: 310).

So. If the human mind is a Turing machine (as materialists believe) then there are unsolvable problems. Or, the human mind infinitely surpasses the powers of any finite machine.

You select either possibility and both the possibilities defeat materialism.

3. The following four together prove beyond doubt that the ultimate reality, as it is, is unknowable --- to mental enquiry (italics my emphasis):

• Heisenberg's Uncertainty (Physics) — There is a limit to how accurately we can measure the properties of physical objects.
• Bell's Inequality (Physics) — That limit applies not just to our ability to measure things accurately, but to our fundamental ability to know things about physical objects.
• Gödel's Incompleteness (Mathematics) — Any attempt to explain everything using a small(er) set of axioms is doomed to be either unfinished or wrong.
• Turing's Undecidability (Computing) — There are infinitely many problems that cannot be solved by any digital computer.

4. Although, I expect you to be different from usual science fan-boys, yet it seems that I cannot ever make you acknowledge that you are wrong. So, let a true physicist speak. I request everyone who may be reading this to read the following text fully.

Godel and the End of Physics
​

The most relevant portion is reproduced below:

Godel and the End of Physics
Stephen Hawking

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.......

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. The theories we have so far are both inconsistent and incomplete.....

if one can't define the wave function point wise, one can't predict the future to arbitrary accuracy, even in the reduced determinism of quantum theory. What we need is a formulation of M theory that takes account of the black hole information limit. But then our experience with supergravity and string theory, and the analogy of Godel’s theorem, suggest that even this formulation will be incomplete......

Some people will be very disappointed if there is not an ultimate theory that can be formulated as a finite number of principles. I used to belong to that camp, but I have changed my mind....

Finally.

Let me tell you how Vedanta sees this problem. It is much simpler and more elegant, in my opinion. Vedanta asks "Who will know the knower?"

It is a much precise and simpler formulation of the statement of Planck.

...

 

[cladking]

Some people will be very disappointed if there is not an ultimate theory that can be formulated as a finite number of principles. I used to belong to that camp, but I have changed my mind....

I believe there are a finite number of principles that will define reality and this number is not extremely large. I believe that manipulation of these principles for the purposes of inventing technology, prediction, and experiment design will be impossible for humans due to the complexity (certainly at the cutting edge). However, there will be machine intelligence within the century and machines can come to do most of this work. I'm not talking about "AI" because this will prove to be a dead end in the long run but actual intelligence of the sort even humans don't possess.

 

[ecco]

Woo.

"I believe reality is like an onion and we've barely even scratched its skin. Each layer is more subtle and more difficult to see or understand."



Ancient Language had a word for "reality" that we mistranslate as a specific "God". The "name" of this "God" translates as "the hidden". Just as the inside of an onion with a scratched skin is hidden from us so to is reality itself. We merely "think" we understand reality because we each experience reality in terms of our beliefs. We "see" a scratched onion skin and believe we know what's inside.

The reality is "woo" is the idea we understand "God's laws" or the "laws of nature". The reality is that just like the onion our ignorance has layer upon layer.

More woo.

 

[ecco]

And if they disagree with me not on the basis of evidence or the lack thereof but because their ASD simply prevents them from accepting all of the clear evidence for a transcendent, beginningless, timeless, spaceless, immaterial, unchanging, omnipotent, personal and good being as the efficient cause for our universe's existence, i.e., God Almighty?

Your tagline:

'High functioning autism is an extreme cognitive processing style that predisposes towards Atheism and Agnosticism.'​

Between your posts and your tagline, I get the impression that you believe that atheists and agnostics are probably autistic.

This shows that you have no understanding of the basics of logic, especially as it pertains to cause and effect.

If 80% of autistics are atheists does not mean, or even imply, that 80% of atheists are autistic.

Perhaps your poor understanding of logic is also what leads you to mistakenly believe there is a God.

 

[ecco]

From personal experience I know that my brother became homosexual after he was raped by a man when he was a teen.

Do you actually believe what you write?

Someone is raped. Physically assaulted against his will. He likes it so much that he decides to change his sexual orientation.

 

[Maximilian]

You are not just a troll, but you are dishonest one, because you keep evading any request to present your fact - where are your evidences?

If it is "inescapable" or so you've claimed, then present it, demonstrate it.

The Borde-Vilenkin-Guth Theorem, for instance, proves that any universe, that has, on average, a rate of expansion greater than one absolutely must have have a finite beginning.

In fact, Vilenkin had this to say regarding the beginning of the universe, “It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning.” (Many Worlds in One [New York: Hill and Wang, 2006], p.176)

Emphatically, then, this feeling that the universe is infinitely old, beginningless, or eternal has no basis in any respected mainstream scientific theories of the universe.

This creates the necessity for a first uncaused-cause. After all, something cannot come from nothing as you already correctly believe. As previously established as well, this first uncaused efficient cause must, perforce, be transcendent, beginningless, timeless, spaceless, immaterial, unchanging, omnipotent, personal and good, i.e., God. This understanding, of course, is as perfectly natural to the Neurotypical as compassion and empathy.

 

[Maximilian]

There are no objective or absolute morals.

And that right there is the reason why you Atheists "are among society’s most distrusted groups, “comparable even to rapists.""

 

[Maximilian]

Second, the mere existence of an uncaused cause does not prove the existence of a deity. We *know* of events that are uncaused in any classical sense. In fact, MOST quantum level events are uncaused by any classical definition of the term 'cause'.

This means there wasn't just *one* uncaused-cause, but there are many and all the time. So your claim that an uncaused cause must be transcendent (as well as the other properties) is negated also.

So, unless you want to claim a decaying nucleus is God, your argument fails miserably.

Science without a doubt does not have experience of stuffs popping into being ex nihilo sine causa. Bohmian mechanics, for instance, is completely deterministic and furthermore emphasizes that every indeterminacy is actually conceptual.

“Being never arises from nonbeing,” “something will not originate from nothing” are putative metaphysical principles, just like cause and causatum, unhindered in their application. Hence, we certainly have excellent grounds, both abstractly as well as scientifically, for reasoning that whatsoever begins to exist has a cause.

 

[Maximilian]

I have never been diagnosed with that condition. It is possible I am on the near-end of the spectrum.

And just how compassion and empathy escape you're understanding so does the reality of God's necessary existence.

 

[cladking]

Woo.

More woo.

Sure, if it's just "woo" then there's no reason to address facts and logic.

I suppose this post is more woo too.

 

[ecco]

Where do you think morals come from?
-are they taught?
-are they learned?
-are they found?
-are they programmened in our DNA?
-are they just something some stumble upon?
-are they god given?
-not god given?
-does everyone have them?
-how does one get morals?
-etc.

Where do you think morals come from?

From our evolutionary ancestors.

 

[ecco]

Sure, if it's just "woo" then there's no reason to address facts and logic.

I'll be glad to discuss facts and logic when you present them. Onion peeling is more a subject for Master Chef than for understanding the universe.

I suppose this post is more woo too.

Not at all. It ranks high on the list of your more cogent posts.

 

[ecco]

This creates the necessity for a first uncaused-cause. After all, something cannot come from nothing as you already correctly believe. As previously established as well, this first uncaused efficient cause must, perforce, be transcendent, beginningless, timeless, spaceless, immaterial, unchanging, omnipotent, personal and good, i.e., God. This understanding, of course, is as perfectly natural to the Neurotypical as compassion and empathy.

From your link:

The author is listed as Joseph Polanco. Is it this Joseph Polanco?
Joseph Polanco (O), 43 - Glendale, NY Has Court or Arrest Records at ...

If not, what qualifications does he have? Is he a physicist? A cosmologist? Or just another apologist?


Like many theists, he makes assertions that have no basis in fact, assertions that are just his biased, egotistical and uninformed opinions. Case in point:

(4) The cause of the universe is a transcendent, beginningless, spaceless, immaterial, timeless, unchanging, omnipotent good personal being.
​

So, in your mind and his, Joseph Polanco has determined the cause of the universe. We should all bow down in awe his amazing intellect. I'm sure he will be the recipient of the Nobel Prize.

 

[Skreeper]

And that right there is the reason why you Atheists "are among society’s most distrusted groups, “comparable even to rapists.""

Don't worry about it, more and more people are joining our side.

Also that article is from Huffpost and was written in 2011, you got anything recent? But you guys do like to rely on outdated material, don't you?

 

[Skreeper]

Science without a doubt does not have experience of stuffs popping into being ex nihilo sine causa. Bohmian mechanics, for instance, is completely deterministic and furthermore emphasizes that every indeterminacy is actually conceptual.

“Being never arises from nonbeing,” “something will not originate from nothing” are putative metaphysical principles, just like cause and causatum, unhindered in their application. Hence, we certainly have excellent grounds, both abstractly as well as scientifically, for reasoning that whatsoever begins to exist has a cause.

That's cool and all and it works within our universe. We don't know though if these same rules apply outside the universe.

 

[We Never Know]

From our evolutionary ancestors.

While I agree, it doesn't answer anything.
That no different than when discussing evolution you may as well just say life evolves the end.

 

[cladking]

I'll be glad to discuss facts and logic when you present them. Onion peeling is more a subject for Master Chef than for understanding the universe.

Then are you suggesting there was no "God" whose name meant "The Hidden"!
You believe there's only one or an infinite number of the "laws of nature!
You know that we already know everything and it's not necessary to continue to seek understanding? or count laws of nature?
You know there will never be machine intelligence and don't need to discuss it!
You know AI will be sufficient to Turing's test so sufficient for all human and future needs!
You know you are smart so there's no need to review the reasons for this knowledge.
But best of all you know the formatting of reality itself even before physics has a unified field theory.
You may even already be able to predict the future since you call my statement that we'll probably never be able to predict it "woo".

Your words are simple non-communicative nonsense that you expect to get away with since it's just one word.

Now you can ignore the facts and logic and attempts at communication and just post "woo" and be done with it.

I should have been done with your nonsense some time back. The facts and logic that support my arguments are of no interest to you since you can just label them instead of thinking.

 

[We Never Know]

From our evolutionary ancestors.

To add to my last reply, which had morals and which didn't? In my opinion we don't know.

-Homo Heidelbergensis
-Homo Rudolfensis
-Homo Habilis
-Homo Floresiensis
-Homo Erectus
-Homo Neanderthalensis
-Homo Sapiens