Science cannot solve the final mystery

[Polymath257]

OK, we *know* that there are unsolvable problems in math. We *know* there is information about the universe we can never have.

At one point, Hawking thought we might be near the end of physics because of the nature of Planck lengths and times. Now, he suspects we may never get to the end because of self-referentiality.

I am truthfully less than convinced by either argument. Godel's results have hypotheses that simply are not met by most physical theories. They are important results *for mathematics*, but I also disagree with Hawking that ever unsolvable problem in math leads to an unsolvable problem in physics. So his link between the math and the physics seems to me, in this case, to be very weak.

So what would the impact of not having a TOE be? Well, research would continue. We would continue to extend our knowledge incrementally (like we have always done) and we won't reach an endpoint. But we would continue to learn.

I fail to see the problem with that, except for those who have a philosophical bias concerning how much we should be able to know.

 

[cladking]

What's in a word?

It's ironic that "worship" once meat "to study" but that meaning became confused.

Today the fastest growing religion is "Look and See Science" and its adherents worship humanity and its genius; homo omnisciencis and human intelligence. This is proven by the fact that we don't even really have a proper word for "metaphysics". We don't have a word for the "basis of science and how science works" other than "metaphysics" and most people use this word as a synonym for "magic" or "woo".

People believe science works because we are so smart and we exist because we think. The very fabric of our beliefs and language are nonsense. And this nonsense has led to a mess in science, society, and politics. People believe science works because nature behaves laws that are visible through experiment because this is the way it seems. People believe "religion" is just made up nonsense without ever considering the logic that can be integral to it. We believe just as ancient people invented cities and agriculture through "trial and error" religions are a construct solely of belief in the context of trial and error.

We believe things based on the way things seem and our beliefs which we pick and choose for ourselves. We rarely recognize the influence of language DESPITE THE FACT THAT IT IS LANGUAGE THAT HAS CREATED HUMAN PROGRESS and provides the formatting of our understanding and the way we think. While you play word games there is a reality which I am trying communicate. There is a tangible and real basis for science that exists outside of language but can only be expressed and communicated in language. This basis is distinctly different than every other science that has ever or currently exists on the face of the planet. Other species than ours don't use experiment and have no use for abstractions.

 

[gnostic]

What's in a word?

It's ironic that "worship" once meat "to study" but that meaning became confused.

Today the fastest growing religion is "Look and See Science" and its adherents worship humanity and its genius; homo omnisciencis and human intelligence. This is proven by the fact that we don't even really have a proper word for "metaphysics". We don't have a word for the "basis of science and how science works" other than "metaphysics" and most people use this word as a synonym for "magic" or "woo".

People believe science works because we are so smart and we exist because we think. The very fabric of our beliefs and language are nonsense. And this nonsense has led to a mess in science, society, and politics. People believe science works because nature behaves laws that are visible through experiment because this is the way it seems. People believe "religion" is just made up nonsense without ever considering the logic that can be integral to it. We believe just as ancient people invented cities and agriculture through "trial and error" religions are a construct solely of belief in the context of trial and error.

We believe things based on the way things seem and our beliefs which we pick and choose for ourselves. We rarely recognize the influence of language DESPITE THE FACT THAT IT IS LANGUAGE THAT HAS CREATED HUMAN PROGRESS and provides the formatting of our understanding and the way we think. While you play word games there is a reality which I am trying communicate. There is a tangible and real basis for science that exists outside of language but can only be expressed and communicated in language. This basis is distinctly different than every other science that has ever or currently exists on the face of the planet. Other species than ours don't use experiment and have no use for abstractions.

I am talking about religion and atheism.

You are changing the subject. I didn’t bring up science.

You have repeatedly equated atheism with religion. The question I wanted you to answer is this:

WHAT or WHO do the atheists worship?​

If they don’t worship any deity, then atheism isn’t a religion. If they do follow a religion, then what or who do they worship?

I didn’t make up the definition of religion. I used the Oxford Dictionary, so I am not playing word game. Are you so blind that you didn’t read my quote from the dictionary?

If I was playing word game, I wouldn’t cite and use the dictionary at all, or I would modify the meaning of religion. But I didn’t.

So stalling, and answer my question - who do atheists worship?

 

[cladking]

WHAT or WHO do the atheists worship?​

I've answered this several times using just about every means I know.

Atheists worship themselves and the genius of humanity which is able to positively conclude that there can be no Creator. They believe only superstitious people can believe in God and they know that there is not a God.

I believe it is impossible to know whether there is or is not G(g)od(s). I believe we may never know how or when reality came into existence or even if reality could exist outside of what we call "space time". We may never know whether space time exists as we perceive it. We make assumptions and set off to prove them. Atheists worship this process without even realizing that they do.

 

[12jtartar]

Name me one thing religion has answered that science hasn't answered better.

Altfish,
Where are we going, and what is our hope, if we came from dying animals???

 

[12jtartar]

I am talking about religion and atheism.

You are changing the subject. I didn’t bring up science.

You have repeatedly equated atheism with religion. The question I wanted you to answer is this:

WHAT or WHO do the atheists worship?​

If they don’t worship any deity, then atheism isn’t a religion. If they do follow a religion, then what or who do they worship?

I didn’t make up the definition of religion. I used the Oxford Dictionary, so I am not playing word game. Are you so blind that you didn’t read my quote from the dictionary?

If I was playing word game, I wouldn’t cite and use the dictionary at all, or I would modify the meaning of religion. But I didn’t.

So stalling, and answer my question - who do atheists worship?

Gnostic,
Any who do not worship the Almighty God, Jehovah, are, is seems to me, worshiping Satan!!!

 

[gnostic]

Gnostic,
Any who do not worship the Almighty God, Jehovah, are, is seems to me, worshiping Satan!!!

It is exactly this sort of absurdity that turn me off Christianity and churches in the first place.

It is the same sort of mentality that caused “good” Christians to torture, butcher and massacre heretics and witches. They accuse these others of worshipping the Devil, while they burn their victims at the stakes.

The whole “Do not judge others” or “Do not persecute others” or “Love thy enemies” have become Christian’s biggest hypocrisy and biggest failure.

 

[Altfish]

Altfish,
Where are we going, and what is our hope, if we came from dying animals???

Are your great great grandparents still alive? No, I thought not, then you came from dead animals.

 

[cladking]

It is exactly this sort of absurdity that turn me off Christianity and churches in the first place.

25) Peter said to him, Since you have explained everything to us, tell us this also: What is the sin of the world?
26) The Savior said There is no sin, but it is you who make sin when you do the things that are like the nature of adultery, which is called sin.
27) That is why the Good came into your midst, to the essence of every nature in order to restore it to its root.

All "sin" is (like) hedonistic self centeredness. It is a lack of concern about what's right and what is true. It is ignoring facts and reason.

Adultery is a small misstep in comparison to turning one's back on reason.

The Gospel According to Mary Magdalene

 

[ecco]

Autism appears to be a language acquisition disorder.

Appears to be? Based on what? Care to share where you read that?

I believe it's caused by over exposure to natural logic at a very young age; 4 - 18 mo

Well, there ya go. cladking has solved the mystery of what causes autism. Please hurry up and tell the anti-vaxers that it's OK to get their kids vaccinated.



Do you never tire of posting completely unsupported nonsense?

 

[ecco]

Adultery is a small misstep in comparison to turning one's back on reason.

Did you really just find fault with ignoring reason? You?

 

[cladking]

Maybe if you read up on autism a little we could discuss it. Until then anything I say will sound crazier to you than any anti-vaccination argument.

 

[cladking]

Did you really just find fault with ignoring reason? You?

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).

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.

 

[gnostic]

I've answered this several times using just about every means I know.

Atheists worship themselves and the genius of humanity which is able to positively conclude that there can be no Creator. They believe only superstitious people can believe in God and they know that there is not a God.

Not believing in gods, don’t mean atheists are worshipping themselves.

Atheism only concern itself with the theological question of theism, which is the existence of deity:

theism noun

belief in the existence of god or gods, especially of a creator who intervenes in the universe.

atheism noun

disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

Atheism is merely atheists who reject or lack the belief in any deity, nothing more, nothing less. Atheism has nothing to do with politics or with science.

Do see any mention of science or politics in any Oxford’s definition above?

So stop making baseless assumptions of what atheism mean.

These are definitions of the Oxford Dictionary, not mine, to demonstrate I am not the one playing word games, you are.

And since you have completely my earlier quotes, here again is the definition of religion:

religion noun

belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially of a personal God or gods.

a particular system of faith and worship.​

And the meaning of “worship”:

worship noun

the feeling or expression of reverence and adoration for a deity.

religious rites or ceremonies, constituting a formal expression of reverence for a deity.​

With all these definitions, atheism isn’t a religion, because they don’t revere or worship a deity or deities.

Plus atheists do not believe they are deities, so they do not worship themselves:

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

atheist =/= deity​

Note that =/= meaning “not equal”.

Just because they reject the belief in deities, doesn’t mean they see themselves as deities.

Atheists have no superhuman controlling power, they don’t intervene in the universe.

This is just you again, twisting words to suit your wack-job conspiracy theory.

All you have done, is play word games.

Well, I am done with you and with your stupid word game/conspiracy theory of Ancient Language.

 

[gnostic]

Appears to be? Based on what? Care to share where you read that?




Well, there ya go. cladking has solved the mystery of what causes autism. Please hurry up and tell the anti-vaxers that it's OK to get their kids vaccinated.



Do you never tire of posting completely unsupported nonsense?

Apparently he doesn’t.

He love conspiracy theory and twisting words around.

I am fed up and done with playing his game.

 

[cladking]

Not believing in gods, don’t mean atheists are worshipping themselves.

Atheism only concern itself with the theological question of theism, which is the existence of deity:




Atheism is merely atheists who reject or lack the belief in any deity, nothing more, nothing less. Atheism has nothing to do with politics or with science.

Do see any mention of science or politics in any Oxford’s definition above?

So stop making baseless assumptions of what atheism mean.

These are definitions of the Oxford Dictionary, not mine, to demonstrate I am not the one playing word games, you are.

And since you have completely my earlier quotes, here again is the definition of religion:



And the meaning of “worship”:



With all these definitions, atheism isn’t a religion, because they don’t revere or worship a deity or deities.

Plus atheists do not believe they are deities, so they do not worship themselves:

atheist =/= deity​

Note that =/= meaning “not equal”.

Just because they reject the belief in deities, doesn’t mean they see themselves as deities.

Atheists have no superhuman controlling power, they don’t intervene in the universe.

This is just you again, twisting words to suit your wack-job conspiracy theory.

All you have done, is play word games.

Well, I am done with you and with your stupid word game/conspiracy theory of Ancient Language.

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. 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?

I have no problem with atheism or atheists but this is just another belief system and cry as you want but there is a lot of overlap between the sets of atheists and the set of adherents of science. This is only natural but it still exists. It is still real.

And now you're right back to falsely claiming I believe in conspiracies.

 

[atanu]

Sure. And what Hawking suggests (but does not show is inevitable) is that there will be a sequence of better and better approximations and not a final TOE.

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

It is highly unlikely that we will need to know the position and momentum of every electron to be able to reduce pain.

IMO, in you are trivialising the point.

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.
...

 

[atanu]

OK, we *know* that there are unsolvable problems in math. We *know* there is information about the universe we can never have.
.

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

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.

 

[gnostic]

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. 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?

I have no problem with atheism or atheists but this is just another belief system and cry as you want but there is a lot of overlap between the sets of atheists and the set of adherents of science. This is only natural but it still exists. It is still real.

And now you're right back to falsely claiming I believe in conspiracies.

Read the bloody definitions I have given you.

It showed that worship is required for being a religion, atheist don’t worship. You stubbornly keep ignoring the part about worship.

I believe in the existence of camel and yet I have never seen one up close before, not in real life, but I don’t worship camel. Belief don’t necessarily mean worship and religion. Once again you are twisting words.

Belief alone doesn’t entail it being a religion, but belief and worship together is what make a religion.

Until you understand that (eg worship = religion) there is nothing more that I can say to you.

 

[atanu]

... How do you believe something doesn't exist without defining what it is that doesn't exist?

This is correct. But how can a denier agree to this? Furthermore, although philosophical naturalists do not accept the consciousness to be real, they implicitly know that evolution endowed them with better discerning competence.