I'm not asking for a clue. I want you to spell out what you think you're saying about science by listing those "mysteries".
OK..
The nice little world of Newtonian matter : of cause & effect ( Classical science ) you think you live in is a shell..if you will..
Certainly your "day to day" experience of existence holds true, but it is when you get down to the bizzare world of Quantum Physics / Mechanics that things start to get " Bizzare " to say the least.
Things and events concieved as seperate , parted in both space and time, are seen by the quantum physicist as so intergrally linked that their bonds mock the apparent "reality " of time & space.
The quantum mechanical notion of "relationship" follows as a direct result of the wave/particle dualism ( aforemmentioned in my post ) and the tendency of the matter wave / particle front to behave as though it were some how or other "smeared out " across time & space. Offering the quanta of all potentialities and infinities at the same time and starting from the same potential: with all potentialities arise from this ghostly smearing of wave / particle action.
Are you familiar with the term.." Action at a distance " ?
In Quantum physics, experiments carried out with light photons have shown independent and seperate photons being effected by an experiment being carried out on one or the other seperately... It is as if the distance ( vacuum ) were not even there!
Yet if a classical science approach were taken to the photon experiment, no measurable force or other influence would be detectable. Yet time and again the ghostly & instantaneous " communication " ( if you will ) occurs between these seemingly " seperate at a distance " photons.
In Quantum Physics this is instananeous action at a distance is called the " Non-Locality " effect. It directly relates to where something can be "effected in the absence of any measurable cause "..
.
This has obviously " mystical " overtones ( hence my connecting it to this topic ) and serves to illustrate more particularly how our " Classical " models of scientific methodology falter at the quantum level.
I could go on, but I am getting tired, so I will leave you to ponder upon the conundrum discovered by Einstein in his own Theory of Relativity.
It was Einstein who first demonstrated that his equations predicted the necessity of " instantaneous non-locality " And thus undermining one of the solid planks of Newtonian "reality "... it is referred to as the
The nice little world of Newtonian matter : of cause & effect ( Classical science ) you think you live in is a shell..if you will..
Certainly your "day to day" experience of existence holds true, but it is when you get down to the bizzare world of Quantum Physics / Mechanics that things start to get " Bizzare " to say the least.
Things and events concieved as seperate , parted in both space and time, are seen by the quantum physicist as so intergrally linked that their bonds mock the apparent "reality " of time & space.
The quantum mechanical notion of "relationship" follows as a direct result of the wave/particle dualism ( aforemmentioned in my post ) and the tendency of the matter wave / particle front to behave as though it were some how or other "smeared out " across time & space. Offering the quanta of all potentialities and infinities at the same time and starting from the same potential: with all potentialities arise from this ghostly smearing of wave / particle action.
Are you familiar with the term.." Action at a distance " ?
In Quantum physics, experiments carried out with light photons have shown independent and seperate photons being effected by an experiment being carried out on one or the other seperately... It is as if the distance ( vacuum ) were not even there!
Yet if a classical science approach were taken to the photon experiment, no measurable force or other influence would be detectable. Yet time and again the ghostly & instantaneous " communication " ( if you will ) occurs between these seemingly " seperate at a distance " photons.
In Quantum Physics this is instananeous action at a distance is called the " Non-Locality " effect. It directly relates to where something can be "effected in the absence of any measurable cause "..
.
This has obviously " mystical " overtones ( hence my connecting it to this topic ) and serves to illustrate more particularly how our " Classical " models of scientific methodology falter at the quantum level.
I could go on, but I am getting tired, so I will leave you to ponder upon the conundrum discovered by Einstein in his own Theory of Relativity.
It was Einstein who first demonstrated that his equations predicted the necessity of " instantaneous non-locality " And thus undermining one of the solid planks of Newtonian "reality "... it is referred to as the
" EPR Paradox "
Einstein, Podolsky, Rosen Paradox..
At the contrary of what people used to think in the late 19 th centurie, Science is a never ending road : the more you learn, the more mysteries appears, and the more we have to find.
In parallelar, it become almost impossible for a man alone, to know everything in science, and our general knowledge beside our better education, tend to represant a more and more tiny part of the knowledge.
People tried to solve mysteries in two manner, by scientific research, or by metaphysic thoughts. There is no necessity to oppose the two, in fact for many scientists, the fruit of the research, and the knowlegde bringed by science is a precious spiritual food.
More than to be limited to only one type of spiritual food (aka the bible for christians, or the Coran for Muslims), it's good to have an ecclectic choice.
This has obviously " mystical " overtones ( hence my connecting it to this topic ) and serves to illustrate more particularly how our " Classical " models of scientific methodology falter at the quantum level.
So old paradigms of science get superceded by newer ones. That doesn't seem like much of a point. Unless your claiming that quantum science doesn't have a methodology of its own.
I think what you might be saying is that "common sense" breaks down at the quantum level, however science continues unabated as people continue to make discoveries and breakthroughs in e.g. quantum physics with measureable results in the real world.
You listed some things that science has no hypothesis for as if that was some kind of slur against science, as if admitting that it didn't know things was a weakness rather than a strength of science and insinuating that if it hadn't been discovered/proved by now it then never will be (at least that is my interpretation of your post).
There need not be any conflict between religion and science. Science is the search for the key to God?s rule book. We are still trying to learn all the rules. There may be some we never learn.
This is interesting but still essentially reducing God to human terms - trying to find a way of explaining God's (postulated) powers in a way that make sense to us.
Another model would be God as 'super-user' who knows all possible outcomes and variations in an infinite universe because he designed them, perhaps even to lead to one (and one only) eventual outcome. That way we keep freewill and He keeps foreknowledge because although we have seemingly milions of choices, in the end they lead to only one outcome (death ?).
How is it reducing God to human terms? We are experiencing time one point at a time on that line. We can't see the past of that line. We can't see the future. We can see the one point in which we currently reside.
God can see the whole line. (Beginning through end)He can experience time and space in multiple dimensions at the same time and move easily through them.
One point versus an entire plane is hardly saying we are the same.
"You listed some things that science has no hypothesis for as if that was some kind of slur against science, as if admitting that it didn't know things was a weakness rather than a strength of science and insinuating that if it hadn't been discovered/proved by now it then never will be (at least that is my interpretation of your post)."
That's the trouble with internet Foxy: you can't possibly get the intonation or emphasis I am driving at without hearing my voice.
.
if I may, my whole point is not anti science..far from it.but rather I am pointing to the limitations of "science" as we presently know it and generally practice it..
It is not an anti-science rant..
I actually have been reading up on quantum mechanics for 20 years..It's a hobby..go figure..what a nut I am..
My point is in dealing with reality & mystery.
Just as classical science nibbled away at the concepts of " GOD " causal effect boundaries . so to Quantum Mechanics & physics is nibbling away at the conventional practice of Newtonian / Cartesian science to seperate everything into the observed and the observer.
The upshot is that there is no independent observer / phenomena in the classical sense...
And BTW quantum mechanics doesn't claim ( like clasical science ) that everything is ultimately predictable & understandable..even in a filtered down conventional reality sense.
I just happen agree with the Quantum Physicists, that there are things that simply cannot be measured or predicted no matter what type of investigative process we put into play.
I know that makes some classically trainedscientists squirm but they'd better get used to dealing with such smeared realities..because like or not, we are approaching boundaries that are totally unpredictable or measureable..
There in lies the mystery.. " Ut humiliter opinor "
..and even if we do, someday, learn all the rules, that does not mean that we will be refereeing the game or even that we will be able to stay out of the penalty box. I mean that, when it is the end of the third period and we are down a goal, we might still be called for too many men on the ice?.
Are you sure you have a point? I'm not seeing one (and I have a fair grasp of the science you're throwing about). Certainly not one related to the rest of this thread.
Any chance of spelling it out for the slower amongst us (and preferably linking it to the rest of the discussion).
Is it really just "some things are unknowable"? If so, I'm not sure how well how your original list supports that thesis.
One point versus an entire plane is hardly saying we are the same.
"Reducing god to human terms" is hardly saying that we are the same, especially when he goes on to outline another scenario for god and the ways in which this hypothetical god is different from a human.
In fact it's more like "trying to find a way of explaining God's (postulated) powers in a way that make sense to us."
Are you sure you have a point? I'm not seeing one (and I have a fair grasp of the science you're throwing about). Certainly not one related to the rest of this thread.
Any chance of spelling it out for the slower amongst us (and preferably linking it to the rest of the discussion).
Is it really just "some things are unknowable"? If so, I'm not sure how well how your original list supports that thesis.
I don?t see any problem with Aquafire?s posts here.
Over the last few hundred years, some have seen science as lifting the veil on, what they view as, false religious theory and as fundamentally replacing it. And certainly the church has had to adjust to scientific discoveries. This does not disprove the existence of God, however. It only proves that our understanding of God and his rules has been incomplete. Most churches today have no problem accommodating science, even on issues such as evolution.
On the flip side of the question, as scientific discoveries advance, we are becoming aware of areas that are, and may always remain, unpredictable and mysterious. While this may not prove the existence of God ? something that is, in any case, a matter of faith, not proof ? it does fill some of us with the wonder of God?s creation. Allow us that.
I think some of us feel the world we live in and the people who live on it... are amazing things to behold as they are. Not as some grand creation.
Giving a god credit for something that is truly amazing seems to do a disservice to nature and the universe itself.
We are amazed at the same thing. Whether an individual person believes that God created it is, however, a matter of personal faith. I don't see how those who believe in God are doing a "disservice to nature and the universe". Indeed, I am not sure that, if you don't believe in something like God in the universe and nature, how you can advance a theory of 'disservice' to it. The universe and nature - according to the athiest view - is just 'there'. Unless, of course, you accept at some level that there is something good and to be respected in the universe and nature itself. If the latter, then great - I fully agree. The point is that this does not conflict with faith in God, for those that choose to believe.
Comments
Originally posted by Aquafire
Here are some "mysteries" that science can't apparently resolve.
It's beautiful how someone can sum up so much ignorance in one short sentence.
I have to ask what the hell kind of a point you think you're making, cos that was just a bizarre non-sequitur.
Originally posted by Aquafire
<SNIP>
We still don't have flying cars or Mr. Fusion either. Your point?
Bah, forget it. I'm off to sacrifice a pig to the goat idol I just made out of wet tolet paper.
This "science" & "logic" stuff is for the birds.
It's beautiful how someone can sum up so much ignorance in one short sentence. I assume your referring to your own scientific ignorance...
" I have to ask what the hell kind of a point you think you're making, cos that was just a bizarre non-sequitur."
It is more pro sequitor than non sequitor...
I'll give you a clue..the limits of measurement, observation, and the interactiveness of all energy...
... Nam et ipsa scientia potestas est....8)
I'll give you a clue..the limits of measurement, observation, and the interactiveness of all energy...
What about the limits of mathematics?
*crickets chirping*
"Everything that can be invented has been invented?"
Because we have no flying cars or Mr. Fusion?.
No different than say:
"Everything that can be learned empirically has been learned empirically."
Because an electron happened to tunnel through a barrier.
...anyone want to join in on my pig sacrificing party? The more the merrier (as long as you don't bring casserole.)
Originally posted by stupider...likeafox
I'm not asking for a clue. I want you to spell out what you think you're saying about science by listing those "mysteries".
OK..
The nice little world of Newtonian matter : of cause & effect ( Classical science ) you think you live in is a shell..if you will..
Certainly your "day to day" experience of existence holds true, but it is when you get down to the bizzare world of Quantum Physics / Mechanics that things start to get " Bizzare " to say the least.
Things and events concieved as seperate , parted in both space and time, are seen by the quantum physicist as so intergrally linked that their bonds mock the apparent "reality " of time & space.
The quantum mechanical notion of "relationship" follows as a direct result of the wave/particle dualism ( aforemmentioned in my post ) and the tendency of the matter wave / particle front to behave as though it were some how or other "smeared out " across time & space. Offering the quanta of all potentialities and infinities at the same time and starting from the same potential: with all potentialities arise from this ghostly smearing of wave / particle action.
Are you familiar with the term.." Action at a distance " ?
In Quantum physics, experiments carried out with light photons have shown independent and seperate photons being effected by an experiment being carried out on one or the other seperately... It is as if the distance ( vacuum ) were not even there!
Yet if a classical science approach were taken to the photon experiment, no measurable force or other influence would be detectable. Yet time and again the ghostly & instantaneous " communication " ( if you will ) occurs between these seemingly " seperate at a distance " photons.
In Quantum Physics this is instananeous action at a distance is called the " Non-Locality " effect. It directly relates to where something can be "effected in the absence of any measurable cause "..
.
This has obviously " mystical " overtones ( hence my connecting it to this topic ) and serves to illustrate more particularly how our " Classical " models of scientific methodology falter at the quantum level.
I could go on, but I am getting tired, so I will leave you to ponder upon the conundrum discovered by Einstein in his own Theory of Relativity.
It was Einstein who first demonstrated that his equations predicted the necessity of " instantaneous non-locality " And thus undermining one of the solid planks of Newtonian "reality "... it is referred to as the
" EPR Paradox "
Einstein, Podolsky, Rosen Paradox..
Originally posted by Aquafire
OK..
The nice little world of Newtonian matter : of cause & effect ( Classical science ) you think you live in is a shell..if you will..
Certainly your "day to day" experience of existence holds true, but it is when you get down to the bizzare world of Quantum Physics / Mechanics that things start to get " Bizzare " to say the least.
Things and events concieved as seperate , parted in both space and time, are seen by the quantum physicist as so intergrally linked that their bonds mock the apparent "reality " of time & space.
The quantum mechanical notion of "relationship" follows as a direct result of the wave/particle dualism ( aforemmentioned in my post ) and the tendency of the matter wave / particle front to behave as though it were some how or other "smeared out " across time & space. Offering the quanta of all potentialities and infinities at the same time and starting from the same potential: with all potentialities arise from this ghostly smearing of wave / particle action.
Are you familiar with the term.." Action at a distance " ?
In Quantum physics, experiments carried out with light photons have shown independent and seperate photons being effected by an experiment being carried out on one or the other seperately... It is as if the distance ( vacuum ) were not even there!
Yet if a classical science approach were taken to the photon experiment, no measurable force or other influence would be detectable. Yet time and again the ghostly & instantaneous " communication " ( if you will ) occurs between these seemingly " seperate at a distance " photons.
In Quantum Physics this is instananeous action at a distance is called the " Non-Locality " effect. It directly relates to where something can be "effected in the absence of any measurable cause "..
.
This has obviously " mystical " overtones ( hence my connecting it to this topic ) and serves to illustrate more particularly how our " Classical " models of scientific methodology falter at the quantum level.
I could go on, but I am getting tired, so I will leave you to ponder upon the conundrum discovered by Einstein in his own Theory of Relativity.
It was Einstein who first demonstrated that his equations predicted the necessity of " instantaneous non-locality " And thus undermining one of the solid planks of Newtonian "reality "... it is referred to as the
" EPR Paradox "
Einstein, Podolsky, Rosen Paradox..
At the contrary of what people used to think in the late 19 th centurie, Science is a never ending road : the more you learn, the more mysteries appears, and the more we have to find.
In parallelar, it become almost impossible for a man alone, to know everything in science, and our general knowledge beside our better education, tend to represant a more and more tiny part of the knowledge.
People tried to solve mysteries in two manner, by scientific research, or by metaphysic thoughts. There is no necessity to oppose the two, in fact for many scientists, the fruit of the research, and the knowlegde bringed by science is a precious spiritual food.
More than to be limited to only one type of spiritual food (aka the bible for christians, or the Coran for Muslims), it's good to have an ecclectic choice.
Originally posted by Aquafire
This has obviously " mystical " overtones ( hence my connecting it to this topic ) and serves to illustrate more particularly how our " Classical " models of scientific methodology falter at the quantum level.
So old paradigms of science get superceded by newer ones. That doesn't seem like much of a point. Unless your claiming that quantum science doesn't have a methodology of its own.
I think what you might be saying is that "common sense" breaks down at the quantum level, however science continues unabated as people continue to make discoveries and breakthroughs in e.g. quantum physics with measureable results in the real world.
You listed some things that science has no hypothesis for as if that was some kind of slur against science, as if admitting that it didn't know things was a weakness rather than a strength of science and insinuating that if it hadn't been discovered/proved by now it then never will be (at least that is my interpretation of your post).
Originally posted by segovius
This is interesting but still essentially reducing God to human terms - trying to find a way of explaining God's (postulated) powers in a way that make sense to us.
Another model would be God as 'super-user' who knows all possible outcomes and variations in an infinite universe because he designed them, perhaps even to lead to one (and one only) eventual outcome. That way we keep freewill and He keeps foreknowledge because although we have seemingly milions of choices, in the end they lead to only one outcome (death ?).
How is it reducing God to human terms? We are experiencing time one point at a time on that line. We can't see the past of that line. We can't see the future. We can see the one point in which we currently reside.
God can see the whole line. (Beginning through end)He can experience time and space in multiple dimensions at the same time and move easily through them.
One point versus an entire plane is hardly saying we are the same.
Nick
McFly!!!!!
"You listed some things that science has no hypothesis for as if that was some kind of slur against science, as if admitting that it didn't know things was a weakness rather than a strength of science and insinuating that if it hadn't been discovered/proved by now it then never will be (at least that is my interpretation of your post)."
That's the trouble with internet Foxy: you can't possibly get the intonation or emphasis I am driving at without hearing my voice.
.
if I may, my whole point is not anti science..far from it.but rather I am pointing to the limitations of "science" as we presently know it and generally practice it..
It is not an anti-science rant..
I actually have been reading up on quantum mechanics for 20 years..It's a hobby..go figure..what a nut I am..
My point is in dealing with reality & mystery.
Just as classical science nibbled away at the concepts of " GOD " causal effect boundaries . so to Quantum Mechanics & physics is nibbling away at the conventional practice of Newtonian / Cartesian science to seperate everything into the observed and the observer.
The upshot is that there is no independent observer / phenomena in the classical sense...
And BTW quantum mechanics doesn't claim ( like clasical science ) that everything is ultimately predictable & understandable..even in a filtered down conventional reality sense.
I just happen agree with the Quantum Physicists, that there are things that simply cannot be measured or predicted no matter what type of investigative process we put into play.
I know that makes some classically trainedscientists squirm but they'd better get used to dealing with such smeared realities..because like or not, we are approaching boundaries that are totally unpredictable or measureable..
There in lies the mystery.. " Ut humiliter opinor "
Originally posted by Aquafire
My point is in dealing with reality & mystery.
Are you sure you have a point? I'm not seeing one (and I have a fair grasp of the science you're throwing about). Certainly not one related to the rest of this thread.
Any chance of spelling it out for the slower amongst us (and preferably linking it to the rest of the discussion).
Is it really just "some things are unknowable"? If so, I'm not sure how well how your original list supports that thesis.
Originally posted by trumptman
One point versus an entire plane is hardly saying we are the same.
"Reducing god to human terms" is hardly saying that we are the same, especially when he goes on to outline another scenario for god and the ways in which this hypothetical god is different from a human.
In fact it's more like "trying to find a way of explaining God's (postulated) powers in a way that make sense to us."
Originally posted by stupider...likeafox
Are you sure you have a point? I'm not seeing one (and I have a fair grasp of the science you're throwing about). Certainly not one related to the rest of this thread.
Any chance of spelling it out for the slower amongst us (and preferably linking it to the rest of the discussion).
Is it really just "some things are unknowable"? If so, I'm not sure how well how your original list supports that thesis.
I don?t see any problem with Aquafire?s posts here.
Over the last few hundred years, some have seen science as lifting the veil on, what they view as, false religious theory and as fundamentally replacing it. And certainly the church has had to adjust to scientific discoveries. This does not disprove the existence of God, however. It only proves that our understanding of God and his rules has been incomplete. Most churches today have no problem accommodating science, even on issues such as evolution.
On the flip side of the question, as scientific discoveries advance, we are becoming aware of areas that are, and may always remain, unpredictable and mysterious. While this may not prove the existence of God ? something that is, in any case, a matter of faith, not proof ? it does fill some of us with the wonder of God?s creation. Allow us that.
Giving a god credit for something that is truly amazing seems to do a disservice to nature and the universe itself.
Originally posted by chu_bakka
I think some of us feel the world we live in and the people who live on it... are amazing things to behold as they are. Not as some grand creation.
Giving a god credit for something that is truly amazing seems to do a disservice to nature and the universe itself.
We are amazed at the same thing. Whether an individual person believes that God created it is, however, a matter of personal faith. I don't see how those who believe in God are doing a "disservice to nature and the universe". Indeed, I am not sure that, if you don't believe in something like God in the universe and nature, how you can advance a theory of 'disservice' to it. The universe and nature - according to the athiest view - is just 'there'. Unless, of course, you accept at some level that there is something good and to be respected in the universe and nature itself. If the latter, then great - I fully agree. The point is that this does not conflict with faith in God, for those that choose to believe.
"One thing I have learned in a long life: that all our science, measured against reality, is primitive and childlike"
In regards to evolution:
The scientific truths of today may well be tomorrow's flat earth theory.