Why We Trust in Science

[doppler (Rick)]

Originally Posted by Tropo-Bob

Do U find it upsetting that U may be nothing special?

I am sure that U are to your family, friends and work colleges.

Not upset at all, I just find it interesting how impossibly complicated life is from a physics point of view. The fact that my existence will end but all the atoms that made me will still be there and the energy that was me will go somewhere but will still exist.

[doppler (Rick)]

Originally Posted by xelasnave

Life is great so there must be more to it is not even an arguement...it is a hopeless wish.
The key would be... to be so happy that you live...that you exist at all even... if for such a very very short time and although the Universe is such a big place that you had the priveldge to be here for a mere blink in time.

Live for this life rather than indulge a fancy of something more and you wont be disappointed.
alex

Life has been great for me, but so many people just survive it and don't really get to live and fully enjoy it.

The universe is not really very big and has only existed for a blink in time as well when you think in terms of eternity and infinity.

[Tropo-Bob (Bob)]

Originally Posted by doppler

Not upset at all, I just find it interesting how impossibly complicated life is from a physics point of view. The fact that my existence will end but all the atoms that made me will still be there and the energy that was me will go somewhere but will still exist.

The carbon atoms in You, I and everybody else where part of a star once. That star has probably ceased to exist a long time ago.

When I cease to exist, my atoms will still be around, but they will be cremated into different compounds. The essence that was me will cease to exist. As no new food can be intaken, the energy that my body produces will have also ceased production.

Once, I was 7,14,21 years old. My body produced energy then (still does, fortunately), but that old energy is not lingering in any conscious form.

I have family who have passed. I can remember them, I can see them in photos, and I miss them. However, they are gone, and no amount of creative thinking of mine can bring them back. And alas, so it will be with me later this century.

[doppler (Rick)]

And if we go back before the "big bang" apparently nothing existed, to me that's just weird.

I think that everything is at a first time state and nothing has been recycled yet, the universe is 13.8 billion years old and our sun along with many others was formed 4.5 billion years ago and will burn for another 5 billion years.

The deeper science goes especially into the quantum world the more stranger reality becomes, I just think we should enjoy life but still keep an open mind, after all the universe shouldn't exist according to current scientific theory.

[gaseous (Patrick)]

Originally Posted by xelasnave

There is obviously a problem for some who think science threatens their religious views...and so they protest science cant explain everything or there is more to things than just science.

Firstly for those folk it would probably best that instead of using the word science they substitute the following..."well established and reliable knowledge provided by the best brains in humanity after many years of research, observation, testing and proofs"...and to substitue such a phrase or terminology for "science" as this may remind them that their casual dismisal of science overlooks that it is a massive body of reliable hard acquired knowledge.
And secondly they should realise that belief is a mere opinion with little in the way of proof or reliable observation at least the type that we find in science and to say belief orverides science is to transport oneself back to the dark ages.
Speculation past what is proven does not mean science is lacking ...what is lacking is understanding that it is science that delivers everything and leaves little ambiguity on any matter it covers...
Alex

Well said sir, well said indeed.

[Tropo-Bob (Bob)]

Originally Posted by doppler

And if we go back before the "big bang" apparently nothing existed, to me that's just weird.

I think that everything is at a first time state and nothing has been recycled yet, the universe is 13.8 billion years old and our sun along with many others was formed 4.5 billion years ago and will burn for another 5 billion years.

The deeper science goes especially into the quantum world the more stranger reality becomes, I just think we should enjoy life but still keep an open mind, after all the universe shouldn't exist according to current scientific theory.

Things that were living are recycling everyday. I eat meat, vegetables etc, that were alive and now provides energy, muscle and unfortunately fat for my body. Trees take in CO2 from the air, turn it into wood. Fires burn the wood (or coal) into CO2 , which goes back into the air, which in turn can be recaptured into more wood or leaves by photosynthesis. The list of recyclables is almost endless.

There is a difference between an open mind and a disciplined mind that can build on shoulders of giants that have before them. Curiosity plus disciplined research and action allowed people to go to the Moon, build computers etc. Sadly, there are people that entertain the notion that it was all a hoax.

Good science, does not pretend to know everything. That is part of the excitement of science. When a new hypothesis is suggested, it is not taken a fact. It is only by repeatable observation or experimentation by independent others is it accepted as an improvement on current theory.

Strangely though, some people have it back to front. They suggest a idea and want it to be considered as probable unless scientists can prove them wrong. Its just an idea, not even a hypothesis if it is not built on current science. Off course, current science theories can be overthrown, but the burden of proof needs to be upon the person who is making the claims and to do so through scientific methods.

[doppler (Rick)]

Originally Posted by Tropo-Bob

Things that were living are recycling everyday. I eat meat, vegetables etc, that were alive and now provides energy, muscle and unfortunately fat for my body. Trees take in CO2 from the air, turn it into wood. Fires burn the wood (or coal) into CO2 , which goes back into the air, which in turn can be recaptured into more wood or leaves by photosynthesis. The list of recyclables is almost endless.

With first time state I meant the big picture, the universe is not old enough to have stars burn out or go super nova and get reborn again,(maybe some early stars have expired but they still wouldn't have had time to form back into new suns yet).
That's the interesting part everything we see (in space) has never happened in this universe before.

[AstroStudentUSQ (Mark)]

Many people always reduce the whole nature of existence puzzle to a worldview that is either that of a militant styled materialist atheist OR a proponent of religious dogma, without seeing that there actually IS a third window. What happens is religious people continue to bury their heads in the sand and shout out to the idea of an intervening personal styled god complete with a customary set of religious dogma which is nothing more than archaic, arbitrary cultural artifacts. Meanwhile the hardcore materialists prefer to glaze over the elephant in the room in terms of philosophical implications of the strange quantum world (goodbye our safe, deterministic 'mechanical' worldview of the foundations of nature), the fine tuning of the universe (multiverse?), and of course in terms of consciousness, the nature of subjective experience (qualia).
This third window is the choice to recognize that dogmatic religion does not extend beyond being cultural artifacts; that science is a valuable pursuit and has provided (and will continue to provide) insights more profound than religious dogma; however there are inherent limits to scientific knowledge and one should also be open to the possibility that there IS some kind of conscious (or Proto-conscious?) entity at the origin of the universe (multiverse?!?) which is either beyond our current scientific understanding OR for which science cannot in itself, exclusively explain.
This early on with our knowledge of the universe and existence barely scratching the surface, it is premature and arrogant to say "I know 100 percent that there IS or IS NOT any kind of consciousness we would interpret as God.
Further, consciousness itself may be a unique property in the universe and existence and may be exploiting quantum physics to operate fundamentally as there are ways to prevent de-cohesion (see: Quantum consciousness, Penrose and Hameroff.) At this stage still extremely controversial. So was Plate Tectonics in it's time of introduction.
To talk for a minute on indulgence, it is my view that self aware consciousness (complete with qualia) is a core facet of a potential multiverse and that evolution of biological diversity in this regard has 'grown' Proto-consciousness which permeates the multiverse into advanced forms of self aware consciousness (Humans being one 'flavour'). It is my view that the Soul exists but is in the context of quantum information and thus I belong to the camp of physicists (I am studying to become one) which has a spiritual appreciation of the universe and has no problem combining science and spirituality, while recognizing the inherent limits to science and avoiding archaic cultural dogma.
I look forward to working in Orch-OR and similar quantum models of mind in the future after I finish the astrophysics themed degrees.

[AstroStudentUSQ (Mark)]

Yes it's a bit of an archaic view that "nothing" existed before the big bang.
There are physicists now working on a model called "Eternal inflation" which is a multiverse model, with bubble universes coming into existence.

So in this model the question "what existed before the big bang" would have the answer of other universes coming into existence, since "before the big bang" would mean only before the foundation of this one particular universe (and not all of existence). Other universes with their own space/times would have been and continue to come into existence.

The goal posts then move to ask what is the nature of this model multiverse itself and is the notion of an origin of the multiverse a valid question to ask? I think it is but it is conjecture at this point.

On the point of "recycling" - if no elements had been recycled, only type 3 stars would exist. This universe has had an enormous amount of subsequent generations of star formation. So indeed the cosmic elements are recycled again and again. If this was not the case, metals would not exist to form rocky planets.

(Metals in astronomy (not chemistry) is any element heavier than helium)

Cheers,
Mark

Originally Posted by doppler

And if we go back before the "big bang" apparently nothing existed, to me that's just weird.

I think that everything is at a first time state and nothing has been recycled yet, the universe is 13.8 billion years old and our sun along with many others was formed 4.5 billion years ago and will burn for another 5 billion years.

The deeper science goes especially into the quantum world the more stranger reality becomes, I just think we should enjoy life but still keep an open mind, after all the universe shouldn't exist according to current scientific theory.

[pmrid (Peter)]

Along the same line as "we're made of stardust" theme, I rather like the idea that our atoms remain and get recycled endlessly. It means I am made up of little bits of some pretty cool people. I'm part Copernicus and Kepler, Newton and Darwin, Einstein and Capt. Cook - and not to be choosy and sexist about this - I am also a little bit Cleopatrta, Madam Bovary, Marie Curie and so on. It may not explain much about who I am or why. But I like it.

Peter.

[Tropo-Bob (Bob)]

Originally Posted by AstroStudentUSQ

Many people always reduce the whole nature of existence puzzle to a worldview that is either that of a militant styled materialist atheist OR a proponent of religious dogma, without seeing that there actually IS a third window. What happens is religious people continue to bury their heads in the sand and shout out to the idea of an intervening personal styled god complete with a customary set of religious dogma which is nothing more than archaic, arbitrary cultural artifacts. Meanwhile the hardcore materialists prefer to glaze over the elephant in the room in terms of philosophical implications of the strange quantum world (goodbye our safe, deterministic 'mechanical' worldview of the foundations of nature), the fine tuning of the universe (multiverse?), and of course in terms of consciousness, the nature of subjective experience (qualia).
This third window is the choice to recognize that dogmatic religion does not extend beyond being cultural artifacts; that science is a valuable pursuit and has provided (and will continue to provide) insights more profound than religious dogma; however there are inherent limits to scientific knowledge and one should also be open to the possibility that there IS some kind of conscious (or Proto-conscious?) entity at the origin of the universe (multiverse?!?) which is either beyond our current scientific understanding OR for which science cannot in itself, exclusively explain.
This early on with our knowledge of the universe and existence barely scratching the surface, it is premature and arrogant to say "I know 100 percent that there IS or IS NOT any kind of consciousness we would interpret as God.
Further, consciousness itself may be a unique property in the universe and existence and may be exploiting quantum physics to operate fundamentally as there are ways to prevent de-cohesion (see: Quantum consciousness, Penrose and Hameroff.) At this stage still extremely controversial. So was Plate Tectonics in it's time of introduction.
To talk for a minute on indulgence, it is my view that self aware consciousness (complete with qualia) is a core facet of a potential multiverse and that evolution of biological diversity in this regard has 'grown' Proto-consciousness which permeates the multiverse into advanced forms of self aware consciousness (Humans being one 'flavour'). It is my view that the Soul exists but is in the context of quantum information and thus I belong to the camp of physicists (I am studying to become one) which has a spiritual appreciation of the universe and has no problem combining science and spirituality, while recognizing the inherent limits to science and avoiding archaic cultural dogma.
I look forward to working in Orch-OR and similar quantum models of mind in the future after I finish the astrophysics themed degrees.

I wish U well with your studies and your future career. Sir Issac Newton was a deeply religious man and that did not adversely affect his scientific output. Quantum physics can be used in a quasi-religious way. If that gives U inspiration and strength, then so be it. However, let Newton be ur guide on how to conduct research in the physical world and do not let seductive spiritual ideas impede this.

[Tropo-Bob (Bob)]

Originally Posted by pmrid

Along the same line as "we're made of stardust" theme, I rather like the idea that our atoms remain and get recycled endlessly. It means I am made up of little bits of some pretty cool people. I'm part Copernicus and Kepler, Newton and Darwin, Einstein and Capt. Cook - and not to be choosy and sexist about this - I am also a little bit Cleopatrta, Madam Bovary, Marie Curie and so on. It may not explain much about who I am or why. But I like it.

Peter.

That's an interesting and harmless way at looking at life.

However, such ideas have been taken more spiritually with Communion in mainstream, Christian Churches being about the ingestion of the body and blood of Christ.

Then there was cannibalism, with beliefs that if you ate your opponent, you gained his strength. However, in PNG, the only thing that was proven was cannibalism could cause brain disease. So eventually, a win for science (in the form of health research) over spiritual beliefs on what is beneficial for one.

[doppler (Rick)]

Originally Posted by AstroStudentUSQ

On the point of "recycling" - if no elements had been recycled, only type 3 stars would exist. This universe has had an enormous amount of subsequent generations of star formation. So indeed the cosmic elements are recycled again and again. If this was not the case, metals would not exist to form rocky planets.

Cheers,
Mark

I didn't realize that super giant stars only have lifespans of only a few million years and not billions of years like our own sun, so yes that explains a lot of recycling and new star formation.

And for Marks post (28)

[xelasnave]

Hi Mark

I enjoyed reading your post but I have to comment on a few points.
I dont want to seem grumpy and disagreeable because I am not really so please dont let me put you off because you may interprete my style as abrasive.
You said..

Originally Posted by AstroStudentUSQ

Meanwhile the hardcore materialists prefer to glaze over the elephant in the room in terms of philosophical implications of the strange quantum world (goodbye our safe, deterministic 'mechanical' worldview of the foundations of nature), the fine tuning of the universe (multiverse?), and of course in terms of consciousness, the nature of subjective experience (qualia)..

I suggest there is no elephant in the room.

The quantum world may seem strange to us but that strangeness comes about from our efforts to read it and not necessarily from some feature of that world that really makes it strange.

I do think the strangeness of the quantum world is a perception arising to a large degree from the necessity to employ probability in the science we call quantum physics.

Also I really think the alledged strangeness is promoted by science journalists to make their reporting "exciting"


But the game is very deterministict...and that is the point. This alledged strangeness should not be seen as providing an environment that in effect makes anything posible...I see folk suggest this but really there is no basis for this approach...in my view.

Originally Posted by AstroStudentUSQ

This third window is the choice to recognize that dogmatic religion does not extend beyond being cultural artifacts; that science is a valuable pursuit and has provided (and will continue to provide) insights more profound than religious dogma; however there are inherent limits to scientific knowledge and one should also be open to the possibility that there IS some kind of conscious (or Proto-conscious?) entity at the origin of the universe (multiverse?!?) which is either beyond our current scientific understanding OR for which science cannot in itself, exclusively explain.
This early on with our knowledge of the universe and existence barely scratching the surface, it is premature and arrogant to say "I know 100 percent that there IS or IS NOT any kind of consciousness we would interpret as God.

You present your thoughts nicely however you do realise that you are speculating with no foundation.

If you wish to invent posibilities you must appreciate that one takes the path of make believe and basless speculation.

Let me try ...should we eliminate the posibility that we are in someone elses dream and that ice cream grows hair on a bald head..any speculation crazy or seemingly sound is after all mere speculation....and although it is perhaps arogant to say ~I know 100 percent that there is or is not any kind of consciousness we interpret as God~ perhaps no as arogant to assert that any speculation is somehow better than fact and reality.
The is no foundational evidence for religion and so it is no better or worse than any other speculation but one should never forget it is mere speculation with out supporting evidence...

Originally Posted by AstroStudentUSQ

Further, consciousness itself may be a unique property in the universe and existence and may be exploiting quantum physics to operate fundamentally as there are ways to prevent de-cohesion (see: Quantum consciousness, Penrose and Hameroff.) At this stage still extremely controversial. So was Plate Tectonics in it's time of introduction.

This is more than speculation...it is wild speculation seeking to link science with a hope that a certain philosophy may have a claim to fame using jounalists sensationalism of the quantum world. It is obvious why the Penrose and Hameroff stuff is contraversial...it is dishonest really. And to link such wild speculation to Plate Tectonics because they share an element of being seen as contraversial is simply wrong...Plate tectonics started with observations and a scientific approach and the stuff you suggest is neither scientific or starts from a base of observation...you need to be careful using parrallels that are wrong.
.

Originally Posted by AstroStudentUSQ

To talk for a minute on indulgence, it is my view that self aware consciousness (complete with qualia) is a core facet of a potential multiverse and that evolution of biological diversity in this regard has 'grown' Proto-consciousness which permeates the multiverse into advanced forms of self aware consciousness (Humans being one 'flavour'). It is my view that the Soul exists but is in the context of quantum information and thus I belong to the camp of physicists (I am studying to become one) which has a spiritual appreciation of the universe and has no problem combining science and spirituality, while recognizing the inherent limits to science and avoiding archaic cultural dogma.
I look forward to working in Orch-OR and similar quantum models of mind in the future after I finish the astrophysics themed degrees.

You will never become a scientist if you start with arriving at conclusions predetermined as to the make up of the universe and spirituality.
Can not be done..
Such an approach will colour every observation and everything you do because you really start from a position of proving a [point...the point that there is more to the universe..your philosophy precludes you from being a real scientist...sorry but explain where I could be wrong here..

I dont like the big bang theory for the simple reason the idea came from a priest who had adopted the pagon idea that the universe came from a cosmic egg...sure he has the maths etc but I strongly feel that he set out to provide a framework to accommodate his core beliefs...Of course one is labled a crank to reject the big bang theory but I note that I do not reject itas it is the current model...do I think that model will change...I most certainly do...however my point is although I hold views against it I am happy to work with the model ...not that I need to as it does not feature in my day to day life at all....Remeber cosmology is after al an attempt by humans to explain the creation of the Universe to a large degree...I would prefer to call cosmology philosophy supported by science than science that supports philosophy...

You mention the soul...there is nothing to suggest there is a soul and it is not scientific I hope you realise that...

A question...does your view extend to the concept of there must be an inteligent designer behind the complexity of the Universe?

Again nice post and I wish you well in your studies.

alex

[xelasnave]

Hi Mark
I expect that you have read Kal Popper which covers the philosophy of science.
If not I highly recommend that you read up ..if nothing else use wiki as that will be a reasonable introduction.
Alex

[AstroStudentUSQ (Mark)]

Hi Alex,

The level of abstraction I am talking about in relation to a perceived ultimate nature of existence itself may be beyond the inherent limitations of science as we understand it, to exclusively explain. One can study that which falls within the domain of science such as studying stars, planets, etc, while also recognizing that different questions exist at a different level of abstraction which may fall outside of what the scientific method in itself can be applied to.

Again, I would like to make a clear distinction between dogmatic religion and being open minded to the possibility of a spiritual connection, a distinction made and enjoyed by many historical scientists, Einstein included.

In regards to the soul, we are going to have to just agree to disagree here.
I used to be an exclusive hardcore materialist until certain events happened in my life which opened my mind to the concept of consciousness continuing to exist following bodily death, via an alternate mechanism.
I understand and accept that I cannot *prove* such events, any more than you can *prove* to me right now in scientific terms that you love X person. Thus I come back to such things being outside the domain of what can be achieved with science, which itself is a Human endeavor with a strict set of parameters.

Cheers,
Mark

[xelasnave]

The soul is an interesting concept.
It goes back a long way, I think the Eygptians conceived it and may be it goes back further.

I find it facinating that humans have this need or interest in spiritual matters. I mean that sincerely and I am not having a dig.

I wonder what started it all off... My feeling is perhaps at first maybe tribal elders invented their Gods and spirits to help guide their communities knowing that the young folk would not really obey the elders when out of eye contact but the prospect of a God or spirit being around all the time may have been more effective...

For example the elders may realise that to cut trees on the mountain behind the village could only end in land slides and invented the mountain spirit who would destroy you if you walked on that mountain or cut down trees...that sort of thing.

That is a speculation driven I guess by the need to offer an answer even though I have absolutely no idea...but I certainly wonder why the need for spirituality and the invention of the soul concept.

I am open minded but there are things I reject outright..I doubt that there is a God although I would conceed anything is possible ..what I reject outright is the way humans believe they are privey to what, if there is any entity or force or whatever, that they could possibly know its purpose or any attributes what so ever.


You sound at least a very reasonable man but I am sure you know we have some strange folk out there who become somewhat convinced their view is the only one that is correct.... and of course if their view disagrees with mine then clearly they are wrong... It is not easy being right all the time like me as you feel guilty about being so fortunate and guilty that whilst you avoid your responsibility of ruling the world that humanity will only suffer without ones guidence.

If only folk could follow my morality and life principles the world would be perfect...

And although I joke I would say I may find there are folk who really do think that way...I would not of course as I am far too humble.

alex

[AstroStudentUSQ (Mark)]

Hi Alex,

Oh yes, I agree with you entirely about Humanity not being in a 'privileged' position in terms of an exclusive ownership of self aware consciousness. There are of course other life forms on THIS planet that have a high degree of consciousness (I'm thinking Dolphins as one example), and of course there simply must be other advanced life throughout the universe which has obtained consciousness. Thus when I talk of Humanity, Source, Soul etc I am speaking in the context of Humans being only one 'flavour' of that, and in no way having an exclusive anthropocentric dominance of it as propagated by dogmatic religion.

I sympathize with you being right all the time, it must be an incredible weight on your shoulders.

Cheers,
Mark

[doppler (Rick)]

I think science is just scrapping the tip of the iceberg in its understanding of the universe, the deeper we go the more unanswered questions arise needing new theories to be formulated and a lot of mysteries that might never be solved.

An interesting read on the soul.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog...dence-says-yes

"Although the current scientific paradigm is based on the belief that the world has an objective observer-independent existence, real experiments suggest just the opposite. We think life is just the activity of atoms and particles, which spin around for a while and then dissipate into nothingness. But if we add life to the equation, we can explain some of the major puzzles of modern science, including the uncertainty principle, entanglement and the fine-tuning of the laws that shape the universe."


Entanglement
"In quantum physics, entangled particles remain connected so that actions performed on one affect the other, even when separated by great distances. The phenomenon so riled Albert Einstein he called it "spooky action at a distance."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_entanglement

[xelasnave]

Re unanswered questions...there probably will always be unanswered questions that is reasonable but it is unreasonable to invent answers.
Think of it this way ... it is though we are in a large dark room and science is the light...what it illuminates we can take as fairly reliable but what may be in the dark we dont know so there is little point in guessing what hides in the darkness.
Science does not have all the answers but it has more than a y other approach by a country mile.

Alex