• 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!

Science cannot solve the final mystery

cladking

Well-Known Member
While we stumble blindly in the dark animals can make out dim shapes and the formatting of the room.

This analogy works better if we remember that animals are in smaller rooms and each species has a different room. While they can see pieces of the whole humans can see the mites on the back legs of the bark beetles that inhabit the woods but we lack the ability to see the woods and the trees simultaneously. Our science takes things apart to study but can't put anything back together to get a perspective of the formatting hidden by the dark of the room. We think we see "evolution" and think our extrapolations/ interpolations of experiment have meaning but they can't stop us from seeing what we believe and being oblivious to the nature of the darkness. We think reality is beholden to mathematics while it's far more true that mathematics is beholden to reality and we lack all the relevant equations. Reality and math are logical and this is why each works.
 

Ben Dhyan

Veteran Member
“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.”


Relativity, the Absolute, the Human Search for Truth: Nobel Laureate and Quantum Theory Originator Max Planck on Science and Mystery
Never say never, but when it happens, it will be because one day science will evolve to accept the existence of reality represented by religious concepts such as God, Spirit, etc.. Probably it has already happened and concepts such as ET, angels, etc., may be higher evolved entities from earlier human evolution elsewhere in the universe.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member

No one knows nor can solve the final mystery.

Ancient religions and their believers can only speculate and 'believe' they know what the final mystery is.

with 5% knowledge of the Universe , as one friend has told in another thread, Science is little qualified to even comprehend not to speak of to solve the final mystery, I must say, please. Right?

Incoherent and confusing! and unbelievably wrong!?!?!?! The scientific knowledge of our universe cannot be expressed in 'percentages.'

The knowledge of science has the best explanation understanding of the physical nature of our universe. Again, no one 'knows' the final mystery. The ancient tribal religions only lack any scientific knowledge and offer many conflicting subjective explanations of the nature of our physical existence.

Please present the evidence that any ancient tribal religion has any scientific knowledge of our universe based on objective verifiable methods.
 

Ben Dhyan

Veteran Member
Science cannot solve the final mystery

with 5% knowledge of the Universe , as one friend has told in another thread, Science is little qualified to even comprehend not to speak of to solve the final mystery, I must say, please. Right?

Regards
Correct. But contemporary science already is aware that it is only presently dealing with the 5%.

Do familiarize yourself with the meaning of the word 'science'. It just basically means knowledge. science | Search Online Etymology Dictionary

So as evolution continues, science (knowledge) will increase until the very goal of science may be the realization of God, the 100%.
 

ChristineM

"Be strong", I whispered to my coffee.
Premium Member
Science cannot solve the final mystery

with 5% knowledge of the Universe , as one friend has told in another thread, Science is little qualified to even comprehend not to speak of to solve the final mystery, I must say, please. Right?

Regards

Science (scientists) are aware of the limited knowledge they hold. But it is generally valid knowledge and as such is qualified to speak on what it knows.

It is also qualified to hypothesise one whst it doesn't know where it relates to the knowledge they hold

And 5%, i find that an astronomically large percentage given the size of the universe.
 

Audie

Veteran Member
'As if . . .?' Odd response/ Never claimed to know what the final Mystery is.


Again and again . . . No one knows nor ever can solve the 'Final Mystery.

As if that was addressed to you.

Knowing what it is or whether such a thing
as a. " fijnal mystery" exists or even makes
sense, and solving it, are way
different things.

Fyi
 
Last edited:

Tiberius

Well-Known Member
Science cannot solve the final mystery

with 5% knowledge of the Universe , as one friend has told in another thread, Science is little qualified to even comprehend not to speak of to solve the final mystery, I must say, please. Right?

Regards

Science is the best tool we have for learning how the universe works. Science may not be able to answer many of the questions we currently have, but science has an excellent track record.
 

gnostic

The Lost One
Science cannot solve the final mystery

with 5% knowledge of the Universe , as one friend has told in another thread, Science is little qualified to even comprehend not to speak of to solve the final mystery, I must say, please. Right?
Correct. But contemporary science already is aware that it is only presently dealing with the 5%.

Do familiarize yourself with the meaning of the word 'science'. It just basically means knowledge. science | Search Online Etymology Dictionary

So as evolution continues, science (knowledge) will increase until the very goal of science may be the realization of God, the 100%.

I don’t think either of you, know what you are talking about - when science talk of this “5%” of the Universe, it isn’t talking about the 5% of “knowledge”.

This percentage is not about “knowledge” at all, because “knowledge” cannot be quantified in such a way, as 5%. You are both misunderstanding what this percentage referred to about.

The 5% is part of the estimation of the “total mass” of the “observable universe”, the percentages were quantified by scientists over the data presented by the WMAP & Plank space probes, studying the cosmic microwave background radiation (CMBR).

The 5% only referred to masses of ordinary matters, while the other percents were to the masses of Dark Matters, 26%, and Dark Energy, 69%. All of these referred to MASSES of the observable universe, NOT ABOUT KNOWLEDGE!

You are both confusing "mass" of the observable universe with "knowledge" of the observable universe. They (masses and knowledge) are not the same things.

There are lot more to knowledge than masses, and having 5% of knowledge of the universe is actually misleading - you are both deceiving yourself with the percent game.
 
Last edited:

Ben Dhyan

Veteran Member
I don’t think either of you, know what you are talking about - when science talk of this “5%” of the Universe, it isn’t talking about the 5% of “knowledge”.

This percentage is about “knowledge” at all, because “knowledge” cannot be quantified in such a way, as 5%. You are both misunderstanding what this percentage referred to about.

The 5% is part of the estimation of the “total mass” of the “observable universe”, the percentages were quantified by scientists over the data presented by the WMAP & Plank space probes, studying the cosmic microwave background radiation (CMBR).

The 5% only referred to masses of ordinary matters, while the other percents were to the masses of Dark Matters, 26%, and Dark Energy, 69%. All of these referred to MASSES of the observable universe, NOT ABOUT KNOWLEDGE!

You are both confusing "mass" of the observable universe with "knowledge" of the observable universe. They (masses and knowledge) are not the same things.

There are lot more to knowledge than masses, and having 5% of knowledge of the universe is actually misleading - you are both deceiving yourself with the percent game.
Sorry Gnostic, it is not 5% that science studies, according to NASA/Harvard it is only 4%. :p
The Dark Universe

So explain the composition of dark energy in terms of it constituent parts and its structure? The same question for dark matter?
 

gnostic

The Lost One
Sorry Gnostic, it is not 5% that science studies, according to NASA/Harvard it is only 4%. :p
The Dark Universe

So explain the composition of dark energy in terms of it constituent parts and its structure? The same question for dark matter?

Actually it is 4.82% of ordinary matters' masses, which is close enough to 5%, from the Planck's mapping of CMBR. Look up
2013 data results of ESA/NASA of the Planck's mission.

The instruments on the Planck spacecraft are more higher resolution than NASA's slightly older WMAP's results.

Plus NASA worked with ESA as a joint mission. The Planck is more up-to-date results than the WMAP's.

While I'd respect the article's details, it is 8 years out-of-date, and it doesn't take into account the data provided by the Planck's mission.

What I am really interested, is the new mission, the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST), which was only launched Christmas, last year. This too is joint mission with ESA (European Space Agency), with NASA doing most of the legwork.

Unlike the WMAP and Planck, which used instruments to detect and measure the temperature of CMB (Cosmic Microwave Background) radiation, JWST are geared for d visible light observations (like Hubble) and more interesting near-infrared observations, hoping to detect earliest stars.
 

Ben Dhyan

Veteran Member
Actually it is 4.82% of ordinary matters' masses, which is close enough to 5%, from the Planck's mapping of CMBR. Look up
2013 data results of ESA/NASA of the Planck's mission.

The instruments on the Planck spacecraft are more higher resolution than NASA's slightly older WMAP's results.

Plus NASA worked with ESA as a joint mission. The Planck is more up-to-date results than the WMAP's.

While I'd respect the article's details, it is 8 years out-of-date, and it doesn't take into account the data provided by the Planck's mission.

What I am really interested, is the new mission, the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST), which was only launched Christmas, last year. This too is joint mission with ESA (European Space Agency), with NASA doing most of the legwork.

Unlike the WMAP and Planck, which used instruments to detect and measure the temperature of CMB (Cosmic Microwave Background) radiation, JWST are geared for d visible light observations (like Hubble) and more interesting near-infrared observations, hoping to detect earliest stars.
I won't quibble, 4, 4.82, 5%, just answer the question, explain the composition of dark energy in terms of its constituent parts and its structure? The same question for dark matter?

And please don't even think about adding to or changing the subject or question!
 

ppp

Well-Known Member
I won't quibble, 4, 4.82, 5%, just answer the question, explain the composition of dark energy in terms of its constituent parts and its structure? The same question for dark matter?
Suppose he cannot. Which I would fully expect. Then what?
 

gnostic

The Lost One
I won't quibble, 4, 4.82, 5%, just answer the question, explain the composition of dark energy in terms of its constituent parts and its structure? The same question for dark matter?

And please don't even think about adding to or changing the subject or question!

I haven't change the subject, I did give you answer already, that the calculations of these percentages of the masses in the observable universe came from the mapping of the CMBR (eg COBE, WMAP & Planck).

The composition of the universe were that of ordinary matters, dark matters and dark energy.

I have no idea what Dark Energy and Dark Matter are made of, but astronomers and astrophysics have detected that there are gravitational effects on galaxies, but it don't interact with electromagnetism, hence the reason why these dark matters and dark energy cannot be observe directly.

They are physical descriptions of what cause galaxy together, in place (dark matter) and what cause the expansion (dark energy), not supernatural descriptions.

I am quite sure, you know about the Standard Model (referring to the particle physics), where certain elementary particles interact with certain forces (fundamental forces or interactions, eg strong nuclear, weak nuclear, EM and gravity) and what forces don't have any effect on the particles.

For instances, we know that ordinary matters are made of elementary particles, especially quarks, which have mass, charge and spin, as well as force(s) that interact with it, and in the case of quark, strong nuclear force.

Then there are neutrino that have no charge, and interact with weak nuclear and gravity, but not the other forces. And then there are both gluons and photons, both have no mass and no charge, but photons interact with EM force, whereas gluons only interact with strong forces.

The points with the Standard Models are fine with our current knowledge of particle physics, but the only real information with Dark Matters and Dark Energy, is that interact with gravity, not with EM forces, AND we don't have enough information if these have mass, charge or spin.

So I have given you what I know about Dark Matter and Dark Energy, but that's pretty little, and I didn't change the subject, as you predicted.

I simply don't know what Dark Matter or Dark Energy are made of, no one do, but what we do know is that have effect with gravity on objects (eg galaxies) at astronomical and cosmological scales.

I gave you what little I know about particle physics, astrophysics and cosmology, without changing the subjects.

The question is, what can you tell me about them (Dark Matter or Dark Energy), without you changing the subject? Can you answer your own question?
 
  • Like
Reactions: ppp

gnostic

The Lost One
Then my claim that scientific knowledge only explains 5% of the known universe stands. Report: Modern Physics Explains Only 5% of Universe

They are only still talking about mass. You are confusing knowledge and calculated masses, as if they were one and the same.

There are more to the universe than the masses. The percentages are only calculation on observations from the WMAP and Planck mapping of CMBR.

We still have actually physically explore any other planets other than Earth and other Solar System's planets. Our two most distant objects may have reached interstellar space (referring to Voyager 1 and Voyager 2), but it will lose all power before it reach any star and planet outside of our Solar System. Plus these spacecrafts are unmanned and they have never actually explore the surfaces of other planets.

I don't think we have explore even 1% of our Milky Way, let alone the rest of the Universe. Knowledge of even 1% would be exaggeration.

No, Ben, Modern Physics haven't explain 5% of the Universe, only 5% of masses of ordinary matters.

How many times must I explain your mistake, before you realize you should stop making erroneous claims?
 
Top