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. atanu

    atanu Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2010
    Messages:
    13,621
    Ratings:
    +2,685
    Religion:
    Hindu Sanatana Dharma
    There are no answers in the empirical domain but that does not mean that there is no answer at all. That is however not the subject of this thread.

    The thread is about Planck’s observation that we being part of the mystery, we cannot ultimately solve it through science.
    ...

    In an earlier post you had said that Godel’s Incompleteness theorems do not apply to physics. I have shown (Hawking has) that that opinion was not correct.

    I do not think that you will acknowledge that. (???)
     
    #381 atanu, Jun 21, 2019
    Last edited: Jun 21, 2019
  2. Polymath257

    Polymath257 Think & Care
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2017
    Messages:
    11,759
    Ratings:
    +11,297
    Religion:
    Non-theist
    To the extent that the laws of physics are a deductive, first order system, Godel's results apply. But I don't think that they are, in fact, such a system.
     
  3. Polymath257

    Polymath257 Think & Care
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2017
    Messages:
    11,759
    Ratings:
    +11,297
    Religion:
    Non-theist
    The vast majority of cosmologists have a much more nuanced view than you are presenting. They understand the known expansion of the universe. They understand that a *purely general relativistic* model inevitably predicts singularities and that time is finite into the past. They also realize that quantum gravity is still very much in its infancy and has a direct bearing on these questions. Most also understand that most quantum gravity models have some sort of multiverse with no beginning.

    Even if the universe is only of finite age, that in no way implies the existence of a deity, as I have shown. Your claims are based on faulty metaphysics that does not agree with actual, known, physics.

    There you go with the faulty neutrotypical/autistic split. The problem is that your premises are *known* to be wrong, at least in many situations.

    Quoting the same, disproven, viewpoint many times does not help your argument. We have learned quite a few things since Maxwell's time that have direct bearing on this question and make is *possible* that science *is* competent in this arena. In particular, Maxwell was before either general relativity or quantum mechanics. So his opinion is rather irrelevant today.
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
  4. Polymath257

    Polymath257 Think & Care
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2017
    Messages:
    11,759
    Ratings:
    +11,297
    Religion:
    Non-theist
    No, "ultimate" is the adjective.
     
  5. Polymath257

    Polymath257 Think & Care
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2017
    Messages:
    11,759
    Ratings:
    +11,297
    Religion:
    Non-theist
    Hmm...I see those as somewhat of a mystery, although truthfully more of a puzzle. The problem lies in the assumption we *have* a singular 'nature' or that 'reality' is something that can be said to have a 'nature'.

    Why are *those* the 'ultimate mystery'? Truthfully, those seem to me to be *very* parochial, being limited to one species (well, maybe a few species) on one small planet orbiting one small star. As an overall aspect of 'reality', consciousness seems to be an afterthought and certainly NOT anything fundamental. For example, we can be pretty sure there was no conscious entity for the first few billion years of the universe's existence.

    Answers or questions?
     
  6. Polymath257

    Polymath257 Think & Care
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2017
    Messages:
    11,759
    Ratings:
    +11,297
    Religion:
    Non-theist
    In which case, it cannot be solved. And I'm ok with that.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  7. 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

    The existence of this supposed multiverse still cries out for an objective explanation.


    To borrow from the following illustration, "Imagine you are walking through the woods on a hike and you come across a translucent ball lying on the forest floor. You would naturally wonder where that ball came from – what is the explanation of its existence? If your hiking buddy said to you, “Don’t worry about it – it just exists, inexplicably!,” you would think either that he was crazy or that he wanted you to keep on moving. But you wouldn’t take seriously the idea that this ball just exists without any explanation of its existence.


    Now suppose that the ball, instead of being the size of a basketball, were the size of an automobile. Merely increasing the size of the ball would not do anything to remove or satisfy the demand for an explanation of its existence, would it? Suppose it were the size of a house? Same problem! Suppose it were the size of a planet or a galaxy? Same problem! Suppose it were the size of the entire universe? Same problem! Merely increasing the size of the object does not do anything to remove or satisfy the demand for an explanation of its existence. And so I think it is very plausible to think that everything that exists has an explanation of why it exists."



    After all, 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.


    So if you're intent on converting me to your belief that God does not nor cannot exist you're going to have to present some actual concrete evidence for this.

    If you can't then there's no reason any neurotypical individual should believe Atheism is a tenable worldview.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  8. We Never Know

    We Never Know Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2019
    Messages:
    2,360
    Ratings:
    +820
    Religion:
    It exists
    "Science cannot solve the most imaginable mystery of nature.

    The imaginable being the supernatural if it exists.
     
  9. cladking

    cladking Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2018
    Messages:
    1,095
    Ratings:
    +148
    Religion:
    not applicable
    I apologize for the snarkiness and was merely trying to reply in kind. It's always a risk.

    Everything other than the nature of existence seems to me to simply be practical problems rather than "mysteries" per se. When people refer to "mysteries" they usually are talking about the who, what, when, why, and how of existence.

    Your results may vary. Of course the term "mysteries also can apply to specific things like oceans or pyramids et al.
     
  10. cladking

    cladking Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2018
    Messages:
    1,095
    Ratings:
    +148
    Religion:
    not applicable
    People very much already have answers to everything. Well... ...of course more "intelligent" people are aware that our knowledge even in aggregate is highly incomplete but even such people will generally grossly overestimate what we know and they usually believe we already have the proper tools to find out and the proper formatting for understanding everything. This is why I refer to our species as "homo omnisciencis".

    Most people are in one camp or another when it concerns "God"; either they know for a fact that God exists or they know for a fact He does not. Meanwhile few people would consider such things as the meanings of the words we use to phrase the question, that there might be any number of Gods (including 3/ 3, 669, 1/3, or 3.1415... We don't consider that there might be properties of god that we can't comprehend or that we might (probably?) never be able to prove positively how or "when" reality began. People don't even notice how complex reality is because they believe science has already distilled it into a few laws and might some day have a single equation which explains all things and predicts all things. Homo omnisciencis.

    I believe all of reality including each individual is part of the exact same thing and governed by all the logic of nature. Humans only seem complex because we've each taken off in our own little directions led by our own beliefs. We each make sense in terms of our premises but many of our premises are wholly in error because we don't understand our nature which is based on language, derived from language, dependent on language, and an integral part of language expressed through our thought.

    God knows I can't answer any of the important questions but I believe I might know the formatting that is most likely to lead to an answer eventually. I believe that consciousness is the force of life itself and an expression of reality itself. Except in modern humans this force is in tune with all of nature and with reality itself. Just as all of reality is in tune with itself as the tides reflect the movements of the butterfly in China so too, is consciousness in tune with reality if you aren't a modern human.

    These aren't answers to the question I believe was posed. This is my perspective for understanding and examining the facts and logic to tease an answer to this question.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  11. Milton Platt

    Milton Platt Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2015
    Messages:
    6,348
    Ratings:
    +2,379
    Religion:
    Atheist
  12. cladking

    cladking Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2018
    Messages:
    1,095
    Ratings:
    +148
    Religion:
    not applicable
    Planck was apparently referring to "anomalies" rather than "mysteries".

    An anomaly is simply a fact or observation that isn't (readily) explicable in terms of theory.

    He's saying that it's apparent that we are a very long way from total understanding as proven by the continual appearance of new anomaly.
     
  13. Milton Platt

    Milton Platt Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2015
    Messages:
    6,348
    Ratings:
    +2,379
    Religion:
    Atheist
    Thanks....the light bulb just flickered on.
     
  14. gnostic

    gnostic The Lost One

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2006
    Messages:
    15,845
    Ratings:
    +3,884
    Religion:
    Pi π
    As important as Maxwell’s works were, and his discovery, particularly in the 1860s, there are many more things he didn’t know and understand before his death, which were completed in the late 19th century, and then more so in the 20th century.

    For instance, his work on electromagnetism was a major breakthrough, but it was still pretty much incomplete. And one of the vital pieces information he didn’t know about was the subatomic particle that give off negative charge: the electron.

    Although, Maxwell understood electrostatic and electrical induction and magnetic flux, without knowing anything about electrons, there is a gap in his knowledge, and that’s what made his work unfinished.

    It was George Johnstone Stoney who gave the name electron in 1891, but it was Joseph John Thomson in 1897 who discovered it.

    With the electron, more groundbreaking discoveries were made in the next century, not just in EM and electrical and magnetic fields, but also in thermodynamics, nuclear physics, particle physics and chemistry. It also opened the door to Relativity and to Quantum Mechanics.

    What you and Atanu don’t seem to understand, is science is always continuing to progress in knowledge, the knowledge is culmination of different knowledge. There is no ending to learning, no ending to knowledge and no ending to discovery in science.

    The whole idea that science know everything or that there is a final mystery to everything, is nothing more than metaphysical BS claims.

    Second, the Big Bang theory only covered subject on the expanding and observable universe. It make no claim to what occurred before the start of the Planck Epoch - the Big Bang - hence it doesn’t say anything about there being nothing or something before the beginning of the expansion.

    The theory of the expanding universe (BB) isn’t about creatio ex nihilo (or something from nothing), isn’t about eternal universe, isn’t about Multiverse, isn’t about Cyclical Universe model, etc.

    The Big Bang theory doesn’t explain everything, and there are yet some parts of the theory that remained hypothetical and theoretical at this stage, particularly the earliest epochs (eg from Planck Epoch to Inflationary Epoch to the Baryogenesis, events which all less than a fraction of the 1st second after the Big Bang). Some parts of the theory remained untested and undiscovered.

    In another word, the Big Bang theory is ongoing theory, still undergoing testing. And it is the only theory on cosmology that we have some evidences for.

    The other models on cosmology are still theoretical. The only reason why Multiverse, Quantum Universe and Cyclical model haven’t been trashed as failed hypotheses, is because the maths still make them feasible, even though we cannot test them at this time.

    You have to remember sometimes theoretical concept eventually become experimental and empirical concept.

    For instance, in 1964, Peter Higgs postulated the elementary particle known as the Higgs Boson. This particle have been purely theoretical for decades until its discovery by LHC experiments in 2012-13. With its discovery, HB is no longer theoretical.

    Like Relativity were theoretical, until they found evidences or able to perform experiments to prove both Special Relativity and General Relativity.

    The Nucleosynthesis of the young universe and Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation were predicted by team of physicists - Gamow, Alpher and Herman - in 1948, but it wasn’t discovered until 1964 by another team, Penzias and Wilson, thereby making the Big Bang model into a fully fledged scientific theory. Since then, over the decades that followed astronomers were able to get increasingly clearer images of CMBR, accumulating with the best images and measurements yet from WMAP and Planck spacecraft.

    Maxwell didn’t have all the answers to electromagnetic fields and forces, nor did Newton with gravity and law of motion, nor Einstein with GR & SR, nor Planck with quantum physics.

    They are all great geniuses and pioneers, but they all have incomplete pictures in the fields they work with. They didn’t know everything.

    Your claims of neurotypical or ASD or suffering from autism to anyone who disagrees with you, to be brutally frank, is nothing more than your egotistic delusion.
     
  15. atanu

    atanu Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2010
    Messages:
    13,621
    Ratings:
    +2,685
    Religion:
    Hindu Sanatana Dharma
    To me, ultimate mystery is ‘Theory of Everything’, which must include us. Now that leads to a self reference issue.
     
  16. atanu

    atanu Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2010
    Messages:
    13,621
    Ratings:
    +2,685
    Religion:
    Hindu Sanatana Dharma
    But as Hawking explained, Godel’s theorems do not suffer from self reference issue.
     
  17. atanu

    atanu Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2010
    Messages:
    13,621
    Ratings:
    +2,685
    Religion:
    Hindu Sanatana Dharma
    How do you know that there is no ending to discovery in science? Is it your guess? Or is it based on examination of questions such as of Planck (as reproduced) in this thread. Or through understanding of Godel’s Incompleteness theorems?

    And if you are correct then you are knowingly forever chasing ‘Incompleteness’? Of what value is that?

    Note: I am not saying that chasing incompleteness is bad.
     
  18. Polymath257

    Polymath257 Think & Care
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2017
    Messages:
    11,759
    Ratings:
    +11,297
    Religion:
    Non-theist

    Godel's theorems are proven using self-reference. In fact, the big thing Godel did was show how to get the natural numbers to be self-referential.

    By doing this, Godel was able to find a statement in number theory that could neither be proved nor disproved in the theory. So, you could either add it or add its negation and get an equally consistent system.

    The new system will still be subject to the same trick, though. It will ALSO have a statement that can neither be proved nor disprove.
     
  19. Polymath257

    Polymath257 Think & Care
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2017
    Messages:
    11,759
    Ratings:
    +11,297
    Religion:
    Non-theist
    Precisely what do you mean by an 'explanation' in this context? If time in the multiverse is infinite into the past, then there is no 'first cause': each event that is caused is caused by a previous event.

    And this ia typical in the macroscopic world where quantum effects don't dominate. Your expectations for a cause, however, are NOT justified when we get to that level.



    And, as I said before, Bohmian mechanics is not taken seriously by any actual physicists today because of its multiple problems dealing with relativity, anti-matter, and spin. The *only* reason I have seen anyone actually argue in favor of it is when they want to have some sort of determinism: in other words, they have a metaphysical bias that excludes the *actual* best description we have: quantum mechanics.

    And those metaphysical propositions are, in fact, false. Most of QM is non-deterministic and non-causal. And we *do* know of things popping into and out of existence: it is called the vacuum fluctuation where particle-antiparticle pairs are continually coming into existence and then falling out of existence.

    Furthermore, this is a measured effect produced in a situation called the Casimir effect.

    Don't put words in my mouth. I did NOT say I have a proof that God does not exist. I am saying the that CA is so riddled with holes that it fails to prove its case.

    Being neurotypical is irrelevant. Looking at the arguments and understanding them is all that it takes.
     
  20. Polymath257

    Polymath257 Think & Care
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2017
    Messages:
    11,759
    Ratings:
    +11,297
    Religion:
    Non-theist
    Depends on what you mean by that. A physics based theory of everything would give the basic particles and their interactions. Elaborating that to understanding consciousness would be a very, very complicated problem.

    And, again, all that the self-reference gives is that there will be propositions that cannot be answered. But we have many such *right now*: for example, asking what the exact momentum of a quantum particle is.
     
Loading...