1. Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Featured Science cannot solve the final mystery

Discussion in 'Science and Religion' started by atanu, Jun 17, 2019.

  1. cladking

    cladking Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2018
    Messages:
    1,111
    Ratings:
    +150
    Religion:
    not applicable
    Our nature and thenature of reality are the mystery.

    In words you can understand were we created by a consciousness or not and do we serve a purpose or not? What is the purpose? How do we come to learn the answers?

    I know you already have these answers just like everyone else.
     
  2. We Never Know

    We Never Know Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2019
    Messages:
    2,424
    Ratings:
    +854
    Religion:
    It exists
    Water bears can survive much more extremes and with much less than we can.

    Also known as water bears, tardigrades are tiny water-dwelling creatures famed for their resiliency. The eight-legged invertebrates can survive for up to 30 years without food or water and can endure wild temperature extremes, radiation exposure, and even the vacuum of space.
     
  3. cladking

    cladking Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2018
    Messages:
    1,111
    Ratings:
    +150
    Religion:
    not applicable

    I think we are a confused hairless ape that has deluded ourselves into believing we are intelligent.

    I believe we are exactly equivalent to other life forms though others aren't confused. I don't believe intelligence exists. I believe science is stuck because we codified too many erroneous assumptions in the 19th century.
     
    • Funny Funny x 1
  4. We Never Know

    We Never Know Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2019
    Messages:
    2,424
    Ratings:
    +854
    Religion:
    It exists
    At least you admit you're an ape. Question is do you think you evolved through the ape ancestor lines or were created as you are?
     
  5. cladking

    cladking Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2018
    Messages:
    1,111
    Ratings:
    +150
    Religion:
    not applicable
    Mebbe.

    But I wager none ever launched themselves into space. I bet I have none in my condo right now.

    I've never seen one waiting in line at the opera.
     
    • Funny Funny x 1
  6. cladking

    cladking Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2018
    Messages:
    1,111
    Ratings:
    +150
    Religion:
    not applicable
    Both and neither.

    I don't mean to be coy but it's a complex answer and providing it is far beyond my pay grade.

    I don't believe in evolution but I believe species change. Many things lead to species change but primarily from what we see it's caused by behavior. Bottlenecks are created by nature selecting behavior. Life is caused by and propagated by (individual) consciousness. I can't rule out or rule in a Creator who drives this or was the original cause. Frankly I suspect that if there were such a Thing that it is not really conscious as we understand consciousness. Perhaps It's some physical manifestation of the onion I call "Reality". I don't think about this very much because it is an imponderable.

    I believe religion derives from ancient science that is wholly dissimilar to our own and just like every other animal science but was far more advanced because humans had complex metaphysical language that allowed an accumulation of knowledge across generations. This and sympathy for others is the basis of morality today but ancient science devised these rules scientifically.

    I believe that before a mutation (another cause of species change) that allowed complex language (a closer tie between the speech center and higher brain functions) our ancestors looked like us but were really "proto-humans". The tower of babel then converted humans to modern superstitious humans (homo omnisciencis) through the addition of a second speech center that translated the digital speech center to the now analog higher brain functions.

    There's really nothing "wrong" with modern humans except we each know everything and have a lot of weird ideas.
     
  7. atanu

    atanu Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2010
    Messages:
    13,718
    Ratings:
    +2,744
    Religion:
    Hindu Sanatana Dharma
    So the other possibility will hold. IOW, there will always be incompleteness.

    Not I but Godel himself says that in his paper. You could check the link. Either mind is not Turing machine. Or the reality is beyond description of Turing machine/mechanism.

    [quote]I suspect you don't actually understand what Hawking was talking about here. But once again, I am NOT a positivist. I don't think that only mathematical laws are allowed as scientific explanations.[/QUOTE]

    I expected the bolded part. Actually you could have also said that Hawking was wrong. Ha ha.

    I repeat from Hawking:

    Godel and the End of Physics

    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....

    ...

    So, whether positivist or not, Incompleteness applies to physics also.
    ...
     
  8. gnostic

    gnostic The Lost One

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2006
    Messages:
    15,896
    Ratings:
    +3,944
    Religion:
    Pi π
    No where in Vilenkin‘s works on cosmology does he mention God, Maximilian.

    Second, Vilenkin is a “theoretical physicist”, not a experimental physicist, which mean his model on cosmology hasn’t been rigorously tested.

    You don’t understand what the word “theoretical” mean, do you?

    Until his model can be tested (which required verifiable evidences), it isn’t a scientific theory.

    A “theoretical” model is only a “proposal”, and there are many models and hypotheses (hence many proposed hypotheses), most of them are untested, so they are not science.

    Vilenkin‘s model is still theoretical.

    The Big Bang is the only model that have been tested, but there are some part of the theory, that are still theoretical, like the very first second after the initial expansion, like the singularity, Planck Epoch, the Grand Unification Epoch, the Inflationary Epoch, the Baryogenesis.

    All of this took place in the fractions of second after the Big Bang, and it remained untested and theoretical.

    But the rest of the Big Bang theory is solid, from the Nucleosynthesis to the formation of the first stars.

    The Nucleosynthesis stage started 3 minutes after the Big Bang, and it referred to when nuclei formed around proton (hydrogen atoms) and around protons and neutrons (helium and lithium atoms), but these were ionised, meaning no electrons were bound to these atomic nuclei yet.

    Electrons didn’t bond with the atoms, until the universe was cooler in the Recombination Epoch, which started 377,000 years after the Big Bang, where the atoms became electrically stable or neutral because the charges balanced each other out. This bonding to the nuclei, had the dual effect. It made the universe transparent for the first time, and allowed photons (light) to travel freely through space.

    This light or photons that we can detect and measure, is what it is known as the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation or CMBR.

    CMBR is earlier than the first quasars and the first stars.

    There are earlier epochs than the Big Bang Nucleosynthesis Epoch, like the Hadron Epoch (formation of protons and neutrons from quarks) and the Lepton epoch (eg electrons), the quark-gluon epoch (of course, the formation of quarks and of gluons), and many other epochs, between the Baryogenesis and Nucleosynthesis Epoch.

    Each epochs took place because the universe continued to expand, which made the universe increasingly cooler.

    The further back in time, the hotter and denser was the universe., where the universe in plasma state. The Recombination Epoch that I had already mentioned was the transition that turn the universe from opaque to transparent.

    The Big Bang leave the universe as open question, prior to the Planck Epoch. Other models tried to explain, if there was any “before” the Big Bang, but all of them are theoretical, including the model advocated by Vilenkin.

    Vilenkin’s model isn’t science until he is able to test it.
     
    #368 gnostic, Jun 20, 2019
    Last edited: Jun 21, 2019
  9. Polymath257

    Polymath257 Think & Care
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2017
    Messages:
    12,015
    Ratings:
    +11,650
    Religion:
    Non-theist
    Right. We will never be able to tell if there is a collection of moments in time whose cardinality is strictly between the cardinality of the natural numbers and that of the real numbers.

    So I agree that there are questions that can be asked that have no answer in the material world.

    So what? How does incompleteness imply a non-material? Those questions are, essentially, meaningless at that point.
     
  10. atanu

    atanu Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2010
    Messages:
    13,718
    Ratings:
    +2,744
    Religion:
    Hindu Sanatana Dharma
    Okay. The universe — all matter, energy, space and time — cannot explain itself. How does incompleteness imply a non-material? I think you have answered already. There are questions that have no answer in material world.
     
  11. ecco

    ecco Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2016
    Messages:
    8,186
    Ratings:
    +3,947
    Religion:
    atheist

    ul·ti·mate
    /ˈəltəmət/

    adjective
    1. 1.
      being or happening at the end of a process; final.
      "their ultimate aim was to force his resignation"
      synonyms: eventual, last, final, concluding, conclusive, terminal, end, endmost, furthest; More

    Although the OP was poorly worded, your response does not address the question. You talk about creation whereas "ultimate" refers to endings. Also, "ultimate" refers to one, in your response, you list multiple different things.

    You might want to get an understanding of the meaning of words before trying to criticize my comprehension.
     
  12. cladking

    cladking Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2018
    Messages:
    1,111
    Ratings:
    +150
    Religion:
    not applicable
    Yes. I might.

    Until we reach the end of our existence the nature of an "ultimate question" is an unknown.

    Maybe you are reading far too much and into a word and taking it far too literally.
     
  13. Polymath257

    Polymath257 Think & Care
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2017
    Messages:
    12,015
    Ratings:
    +11,650
    Religion:
    Non-theist
    And I would simply say those questions have no answer at all.

    For example, in math there are questions that cannot be answered without making additional assumptions. Generally, we simply leave such questions open.

    Not every question has an answer.
     
    • Informative Informative x 2
    • Like Like x 1
  14. ecco

    ecco Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2016
    Messages:
    8,186
    Ratings:
    +3,947
    Religion:
    atheist
    What are some of the (documented) things you see that makes you think species change is caused by behavior?
     
  15. Polymath257

    Polymath257 Think & Care
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2017
    Messages:
    12,015
    Ratings:
    +11,650
    Religion:
    Non-theist
    Let me expand further. We know that QM is probabilistic and not deterministic. So we *know* there are events that we cannot predict the outcome of. We have known this for almost a century now.

    In math, we *know that every sufficiently complex axiom system is either inconsistent or incomplete. The latter simply means that there are questions that cannot be resolved. For the standard axiom system, I can give a list (not that it would make much sense to anyone other than a mathematician).

    All this means is that some questions have no answer. That is, perhaps, surprising to some, but it is a simple fact, even for mathematics. But that in NO way implies that the answers lie in postulating some non-material world. In fact, doing so only pushes back the incompleteness, it does not eliminate it. ANY (recursive) system complicated enough to talk about natural numbers is either inconsistent or incomplete. You can add additional assumptions all you want and the result is *still* subject to that same Godelian fact.

    So, even if you assume a non-material world, there will *still* be questions that cannot be answered. That means you will need to add an additional non-(non-material world) on top to answer those questions, ad infinitum.

    The most sensible thing to do, as far as I can see, is then to simply admit some questions cannot be answered: they simply have no truth value one way or the other. And a non-material existence seems like a very good place to draw the line since it is, by definition, untestable.
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
  16. We Never Know

    We Never Know Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2019
    Messages:
    2,424
    Ratings:
    +854
    Religion:
    It exists

    And now the noun definition of ultimate..

    noun
    1. the best achievable or imaginable of its kind.

    "the ultimate in decorative luxury"

    synonyms:utmost, optimum, last word, very limit, height, epitome, peak, pinnacle, acme, apex, apogee, zenith, culmination, perfection,nonpareil, extreme, extremity
     
  17. ecco

    ecco Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2016
    Messages:
    8,186
    Ratings:
    +3,947
    Religion:
    atheist
    Wow! Another critic! One who doesn't understand the difference between a noun and a verb.

    Definition of noun
    : any member of a class of words that typically can be combined with determiners (see DETERMINER sense b) to serve as the subject of a verb, can be interpreted as singular or plural, can be replaced with a pronoun, and refer to an entity, quality, state, action, or concept


    Definition of verb
    (Entry 1 of 2)

    : a word that characteristically is the grammatical center of a predicate and expresses an act, occurrence, or mode of being, that in various languages is inflected for agreement with the subject, for tense, for voice, for mood, or for aspect, and that typically has rather full descriptive meaning and characterizing quality but is sometimes nearly devoid of these especially when used as an auxiliary or linking​


    "mystery" is the noun
    "ultimate" is the verb

    Before you try to give grammar lessons, take some grammar lessons. I learned the difference between nouns and verbs in the third grade. You still have time.

    But even if we substitute your noun definition for "ultimate" we end up with: Science cannot solve the best achievable mystery of nature. That doesn't make any sense either, does it?
     
  18. Maximilian

    Maximilian Energetic proclaimer of Jehovah God's Kingdom.

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2019
    Messages:
    941
    Ratings:
    +56
    Religion:
    Proud member of the International Christian Congregation of Jehovah's Wittnesses - jw.org

    I'm not positing a so-called "God of the gaps," to explain gaps in our scientific knowledge. Rather, my argument is solidly based upon the best of what we do know in science. The premise that the universe began to exist is not a religious declaration nor a theological one. You can find that statement in any contemporary textbook on astrophysics or cosmology. And it is supported, as we've seen, by the vast majority of cosmologists today.


    So I'm simply saying that the best scientific evidence we have today supports the truth of that premise. And from that, the rest of the deductive argument follows. So in no way is this an appeal to ignorance, to try to punt to God to explain what we don't understand. It is a natural conclusion from the logical validity of the preceding premisses. In other words, for the neurotypical, it's simple, mundane logic.



    As Physicist and Mathematician James Clerk Maxwell put it, “Science is incompetent to reason upon the creation of matter itself out of nothing. We have reached the utmost limit of our thinking faculties when we have admitted that because matter cannot be eternal and self-existent it must have been created.”
     
  19. ecco

    ecco Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2016
    Messages:
    8,186
    Ratings:
    +3,947
    Religion:
    atheist
    I originally just asked a simple question. At that time I wasn't taking anything too literally as I recognize that English is not Atanu's first language. I was sincerely asking what was considered the ultimate mystery of nature.



    Instead of addressing my question, or just ignoring it, you got snarky with your comment to me: "In words you can understand." However, even in words that you thought I could understand, you didn't / couldn't formulate an answer to my question.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  20. ecco

    ecco Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2016
    Messages:
    8,186
    Ratings:
    +3,947
    Religion:
    atheist
    Is that the James Clerk Maxwell who died in 1879? I think we can excuse his level of knowledge considering the electron wasn't discovered until the year of his death.
     
    • Like Like x 1
Loading...