Will science ever know everything?
Printed From: Progarchives.com
Category: Topics not related to music
Forum Name: General discussions
Forum Description: Discuss any topic at all that is not music-related
URL: http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=120067
Printed Date: May 04 2024 at 16:28
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 11.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Will science ever know everything?
Posted By: BaldFriede
Subject: Will science ever know everything?
Date Posted: May 11 2019 at 11:08
|
I am currently having a discussion with a YouTube poster who made a
video called "4 Gaps Evolution Will Never Explain... EXPLAINED"! Here a
link to this video: In
this video the guy utters the statement that science will one day know
everything, something which I (and most leading scientists) most
definitely don't believe. I posted this comment in reply to his video: Your belief that one day scientists will know everything is not shared
by scientists themselves. The reason is that with every scientific
explanation new scientific questions come up. I highly recommend the
book "Why Aren't Black Holes Black?" by Robert M. Hazen and Maxine
Singer. In this book 14 central questions of current science are being
tackled, like for example "Perfect Symmetry: Can We Devise a Theory of
Everything?" or "Fate: Will the Universe End"? And yes, one question is
"Evolution: How Did Life On Earth Become so Varied"? Mark that this
chapter is not questioning evolution at all, it just points out that we
are still far from fully understanding evolution. The book has a foreword by Stephen J. Gould, one of the leading
scientists in the field of evolution. He takes his time to explain why
science is the endless frontier and brings up an analogy by Blaise
Pascal, who compared our knowledge with a sphere. The bigger the sphere
(our knowledge) gets the bigger the surface (our contact with the
unknown) gets. Anyone who believes that we are close to knowing everything and reads
this book with an open mind will wind up in a much more humbled state. He answered with this comment: Well, I may have mislead my position, can you provide the timestamp.
There is a point at which everything can be discovered, or at least
everything that exists within our reach. Now we(i use we as in the
scientific community) will most likely never even know what the body of
"everything" even entails. So my stance is more better explained that as
we know everything that we think there is a possibility to know, we
will find that are just more questions for us to explore and discover. I
hope I clarified my position a bit better. Thanks for the insightful
comment. To which I replied this: No, there is no such time. You really should read the book I recommended. You seem to think that more and more scientific problems are being
solved, probably supported by the press which sometimes comes up with statements like that, and
that since there is a finite number of problems one day all will be
solved.
What you apparently don't understand is that our lack of knowledge is
like the mythological Hydra: With every head being chopped off two new
heads are being formed (with every scientific problem solved at least
two new scientific problems arise). This goes as far as evolution, which non-scientists who are not
creationists believe to be a completely solved issue (and most of the
videos published against the stupidity of anti-evolutionists certainly
help in forming this false belief). However, while no serious scientist
doubts the existence of evolution we are still far from fully
understanding it. I did not even mention
the philosophical implications of such a universal knowledge. A world in
which we knew everything would be totally boring; I would immediately
commit suicide in it. Luckily we will never achieve such universal
knowledge. -------------  BaldJean and I; I am the one in blue. |
Replies:
Posted By: Vompatti
Date Posted: May 11 2019 at 11:35
| Depends on what you mean by science and what you mean by thing. |
Posted By: dr wu23
Date Posted: May 11 2019 at 12:04
|
^ LOL.......sounds like you are either a lawyer or politician...or both. No...imho there will always be something we cannot fathom....since we are finite beings. ------------- One does nothing yet nothing is left undone. Haquin |
Posted By: Vompatti
Date Posted: May 11 2019 at 12:11
| ^ Well, what I'm mostly wondering is what would be the conditions for knowing that you know everything. |
Posted By: twseel
Date Posted: May 11 2019 at 14:54
------------- 
|
Vompatti wrote:Posted By: Chaser
Date Posted: May 11 2019 at 18:00
|
Well, it depends whether it is mathematically possible for us to know everything that there is to know. If it is mathematically possible, then, in a multiverse of infinite universes in which every mathematical possibility is played out somewhere, then there will be a universe where we (or the "we" that exists in that universe) does know everything that there is to know. If it is not mathematically possible then it cannot exist in any universe and so the answer will be "no" it is not possible to know all that there is to know. I suspect that it is not mathematically possible to know everything that there is to know because, to do so, one would have to be outside of everything and, as we are a part of everything, we can never be outside of everything. Incidentally, in a world where everything was known, your suicide would also be known in advance of it happening, and would, therefore, almost certainly be prevented. ------------- Songs cast a light on you |
Posted By: Polymorphia
Date Posted: May 11 2019 at 19:09
------------- https://dreamwindow.bandcamp.com/releases" rel="nofollow - My Music 
|
Posted By: Vompatti
Date Posted: May 11 2019 at 20:15
|
Posted By: Tillerman88
Date Posted: May 11 2019 at 20:18
Oh come on..... the aforementioned sense of knowing everything is such a darn fallacy, since the dualization (everything vs nothing) implies a static state of knowledge that exists only in our imagination. Our world is dynamic, as well as the laws of nature. And as such, our knowledge will always change over time.. ------------- The overwhelming amount of information on a daily basis restrains people from rewinding the news record archives to refresh their memories... |
Posted By: ExittheLemming
Date Posted: May 12 2019 at 03:10
You seem to hold that mathematics is the source of demonstrable truth. I've always believed that mathematics can only approximate reality as no two things in the world have exactly identical properties in every quantifiable respect i.e. x ≠ y. The requirement of 'being outside everything' is just another way of saying that complete objectivity is impossible when you cannot separate the knower from the known etc ------------- 
|
Posted By: Chaser
Date Posted: May 12 2019 at 06:00
I agree that the physical world contains extreme diversity, but I don't understand how this restricts mathematics or makes that diversity not fully quantifiable. No two snowflakes in nature are exactly alike, but that doesn't stop us creating mathematical algorithms to replicate nature and generate mathematically unique snowflakes each time we generate them on a computer. I think that, in the world that we inhabit, mathematics is the closest thing we have to demonstrable truth. The universe is highly complex and diverse, and yet we can use mathematics to land a tiny space probe on an asteroid billions of miles from earth moving at high velocity, using only mathematical calculations. Everything I do today will be governed by mathematics, with billions of calculations taking place inside my brain, even though I am not aware of them. Everything in my life is determined by mathematics, from my birth to my eventual death, and this is true for the whole universe and all other possible universes. If there is an ultimate truth then it is mathematics, although, for the reasons I gave, I do not think that humanity will ever be in possession of total knowledge of all things. ------------- Songs cast a light on you |
Posted By: ExittheLemming
Date Posted: May 12 2019 at 07:16
I don't pretend to know enough about mathematics to flatly contradict any of that (I sucked at math in school)  but I would speculate we can only model external reality in this manner e.g. infinite divisibility is a concept compliant with math theory but not replicable in reality where quantisation appears to hold sway. I'm also not entirely convinced that mathematics can handle the very real possibility of random probability/chance i.e. can a mathematical model accurately predict the outcome of a coin toss? (the inference being that we have at best, a 50% computed chance of predicting this latent reality?)-------------
|
Posted By: omphaloskepsis
Date Posted: May 12 2019 at 07:22
|
Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle states, "The more precisely the position of some particle is determined, the less precisely its momentum can be known, and vice versa." Therefore, you can't know everything about a particle. Since, the material world is made up of particles, ergo we can't know everything about the materials populating space. We attempt to bridge the uncertainty gap with probabilities, which measure the likelihood that an event will occur. Instead of particle position and momentum, Heisenberg's uncertainty principle can also be expressed in terms of energy and time. Again, the more constrained one variable is, the less constrained the other is. The fact that we know, that we can't know everything about everything, is not the same thing, as knowing everything. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle#cite_note-Heisenberg_1927-2" rel="nofollow - |
Posted By: Vompatti
Date Posted: May 12 2019 at 09:47
| ^ You can know everything about a particle, just not at the same time. |
Posted By: Chaser
Date Posted: May 12 2019 at 09:57
I'm also not entirely convinced that mathematics can handle the very real possibility of random probability/chance i.e. can a mathematical model accurately predict the outcome of a coin toss? (the inference being that we have at best, a 50% computed chance of predicting this latent reality?) [/QUOTE] But this concept of probability or chance is simply an illusion. If I roll a normal six sided dice then it is obvious that it is impossible for me to know with certainty what the outcome will be on any one throw. But if there are six parallel universes whereby, in universe #1 the outcome of my roll is 1 In universe #2 the outcome is 2 In universe #3 it is 3, in universe #4 it is 4, in #5 it is 5, and in #6 it is 6. Then we can see that, in fact, all mathematical possibilities are played out and there is no "randomness" or "chance". "Chance" is nothing but an illusion of our own space and time. ------------- Songs cast a light on you |
Posted By: siLLy puPPy
Date Posted: May 12 2019 at 10:19
|
We already know everything there is to know. That's why everything's working out so well on planet EARTH :P -------------  https://rateyourmusic.com/~siLLy_puPPy |
Posted By: ExittheLemming
Date Posted: May 13 2019 at 03:28
But this concept of probability or chance is simply an illusion. If I roll a normal six sided dice then it is obvious that it is impossible for me to know with certainty what the outcome will be on any one throw. But if there are six parallel universes whereby, in universe #1 the outcome of my roll is 1 In universe #2 the outcome is 2 In universe #3 it is 3, in universe #4 it is 4, in #5 it is 5, and in #6 it is 6. Then we can see that, in fact, all mathematical possibilities are played out and there is no "randomness" or "chance". "Chance" is nothing but an illusion of our own space and time.[/QUOTE] If we have an infinite number of universes but a finite number of outcomes, it would follow that all outcomes would occur but we could only ever experience the one that occurs in the universe we inhabit. The laws of physics and the principles of mathematics would clearly have to be identical in all of these universes for this to be true. Is it however, beyond the realms of possibility that over sufficient time physical laws would have to be revised to the point where our current mathematical principles would no longer vindicate our understanding of the emergent reality around us? e.g. the constants of gravitation, vacuum energy or speed of light may not always have been so or will be so in the future etc
-------------
|
Posted By: Jeffro
Date Posted: May 13 2019 at 04:19
|
Science will never know everything. Unfortunately, some YouTubers (and others, it's not unique to YouTube) use that as an excuse to denigrate science and what we currently know in an attempt to promote their own unproven, and in some cases, batsh*t crazy theories. I truly want to keep an open mind but it's difficult sometimes. |
Posted By: Chaser
Date Posted: May 13 2019 at 06:17
But logically the laws of mathematics (and thereby of physics) must be identical in all possible universes. When I say that 2 + 2 = 4 I do not mean that two plus two equals four for me, but for someone else in a different universe two plus two might equal something different. Would 2 + 2 = 5 be a concept that has any logical meaning? Mathematics does not require physical reality to be logically true. Even if nothing existed the laws of mathematics would still hold true, and that must therefore apply to all times and spaces. ------------- Songs cast a light on you |
Posted By: CosmicVibration
Date Posted: May 13 2019 at 19:59
|
I only saw snippets of the video but it seems that the
question is whether or not science will ever figure out all the mechanics of
the universe; all of its laws and evolution.
Is a type V civilization even possible? Having the knowledge and capability to manipulate not just planets, stars and galaxies but the entire universe? This of course poses a somewhat different question, science and technology is not the same thing. Given enough time I think figuring out all the mechanics of the universe and having god like technologies to manipulate the universe is possible. How much time is the question; a few thousand years, a few billion years? Current estimates of this universe expiring is about 4 billion years. Is a couple billion years of advancement in both science and technology enough? Or perhaps escaping into a much younger universe will give us sufficient time? Even if it will become possible to traverse between a multiverse and science figures out all the mechanics of creation, the human intellect will still be incapable of fully understanding a mere pebble. The sons of man and all his sciences will never be able to create anything nor fully understand a single grain of sand. So all is lost? Not at all.. And to truly understand everything would be far from boring, ever-new joy could never get boring. So what’s necessary for such a state? - A state of omniscience, omnipresence and omnipotence. Suicide!! aka loss of ego.. Let’s be clear about one thing now, loss of body doesn’t equate to loss of ego. |
Posted By: adityagupta
Date Posted: May 15 2019 at 00:29
| I think science may not know everything |
Posted By: Sean Trane
Date Posted: May 15 2019 at 06:27
indeed... some want to oppose "science" and tell you it's not able to demonstrate everything by natural principles (and it ("science") will always have something new "mystery" to chew upon) and discredit it to favour whatever the dudes believe in. As such, when "we" try to demonstrate something scientifically, we're often doing it via maths, which is a human invention (just like "god" and "religions/sects" are) made from human logics... which is by definition imperfect. Other foes tend to link "science" as the logic of atheism (in some respect, this is ok, but the short-circuit shouldn't be automatically be made) and therefore as an enemy of god & religion... therefore a target, like it is the case , here. As such, science is a human invention, a much better one than "god" (one of the worse invention) and religion (the absolute worst, since you're obliged to adore something that doesn't exist)... Whereas atheism is not a human invention (only humans believe in the existence of a "god", animals don't), nor is it an invention of any kind.
YouTube is the biggest crap displayer on the planet and in the virtual world hovering around the planet... 95% of the people will only watch/listen but not read the comments below (which are probably editable by the poster himself) to see the reactions to what's been posted
|
Posted By: Lewian
Date Posted: May 15 2019 at 09:41
|
The way for science to achieve the knowledge of everything is the reduction of the idea of "everything" to the set of things science will know at some point. When it comes to the reduction of imagination we're probably on the right path, if not yet close to the endpoint. |
Posted By: Lewian
Date Posted: May 15 2019 at 09:44
|
As a constructivist I believe that we have an unlimited capacity to construct problems, but we also have the capacity to construct and therefore delimit the "set of relevant knowledge". |
Posted By: tigerfeet
Date Posted: May 15 2019 at 09:55
|
We are only in the infancy stage of knowledge but we think we are so advanced with our modern technological development. We need to develop mentally too or we will probably expire before we know everything. ------------- I'm sorry, if you were right, I'd agree with you. Robin Williams. |
Posted By: wiz_d_kidd
Date Posted: May 16 2019 at 10:34
|
In the early part of the 20th century, the great mathematician, David Hilbert, attempted to formulate a set of mathematical axioms that would form the logical foundation for all of mathematics, but he kept running into paradoxes and contradictions. In steps Kurt Gödel who proved that any consistent (i.e non-contradictory) system complex enough to encompass basic arithmetic (or higher) would contain statements that may be true, but are unproveable within the system, thus the system is incomplete. You can have completeness or consistency, but not both. Either way, there are things you don't know. If the system is complete, you have contradictions, so the truth cannot be established. If the system is consistent, there are statement which can't be proven, so again, you don't know the truth. Knowing everything is, therefore, logically impossible. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6dels_incompleteness_theorems" rel="nofollow - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del%27s_incompleteness_theorems |
Posted By: dr wu23
Date Posted: May 16 2019 at 14:30
|
"Hello there seeker...now don't feel alone cause there is a seeker born very minute...."  ------------- One does nothing yet nothing is left undone. Haquin |
Posted By: moshkito
Date Posted: May 17 2019 at 06:53
|
Hi, Nowadays, this question is relative to where you live and study and impossible in the rest of the world until the next event that changes it in your location. I say this, because a lot of "religion", or something under that designation, is trying hard to wipe science and education, so it can control the things that it wants. In general, even the "Christians" are doing this in America, by making sure that they are changing the laws of the country and confusing the "law" for the public, with a "religion" for the public. This is a very scary time, and place for these things ... we complaint about may of the this and that from so many of the revolutionary forces around the world, but we are doing exactly the same thing with different tools ... we vote without ethics and understanding of what we are voting for in America, in some cases. Thus, the answer to that question is impossible ... because tomorrow or the next week, the country that came up with that idea, is now totally controlled by _________ and that "science" is wiped from the map as illegal and improper. Likewise, some governments might make a religion improper and maintain some controls on it, to ensure that ____________ does not happen again! In my own, pseudo scientific way, it will be impossible for the science to EVER know anything within an expanding universe ... why? The physics on it will be ever changing and spreading further than we know or can imagine, and this is impossible for us to see and articulate until much later and another generation and putting it in perspective is ever harder because humans do not live that long, and their memory, even today, is even further wasted and thrown away ... we literally ignore the sciences of yesterday because they are "outdated", and think those folks were not intelligent, when they were the "kindergarten" of what we are today, so to speak. Honestly, and I try to not be cynical about it, this whole question is a waste of time. It will only take a stellar event a few seconds and the earth would be gone, including all the memories of everything we can think of and only space dust will be out there ... with a memory going nowhere and susceptible to the next stronger particle or set of particles of any energy ... thus, in some ways, our "projecting" into that area, into what is commonly known as "the unknowable", is something that for the most part is a waste of time and energy on our part, and sometimes an excuse to not do right and good in our own lives. Sorry about the soapbox moment ... but there were around Santa Barbara some 35 years ago, a lot of folks that were getting into ________________ and they used these kinds of thoughts to try and trap you into ... admitting that you have no answers, which their ______________ did! Right! I never lost a single "debate" in that area, and many folks were just uneducated, and matriculated into a sort of religion ... as a way to ignore and get away from the place and times, and the arts and social revolutions of the time! Honestly, I found the whole thing pathetic and boring!
------------- Music is not just for listening ... it is for LIVING ... you got to feel it to know what's it about! Not being told! www.pedrosena.com |
Posted By: CosmicVibration
Date Posted: May 17 2019 at 08:26
|
I don’t think the physics or laws change within our universe, expanding or not. Our theories and understanding changes but the laws that govern the universe do not. Assuming man will not annihilate himself, how far can we really progress? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kardashev_scale" rel="nofollow - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kardashev_scale It may go even further, type IV and V.. https://futurism.com/the-kardashev-scale-type-i-ii-iii-iv-v-civilization" rel="nofollow - https://futurism.com/the-kardashev-scale-type-i-ii-iii-iv-v-civilization There is even talk of type VI, which is definitely not achievable.
At least not for the egoic mind. |
Posted By: Tillerman88
Date Posted: May 17 2019 at 17:57
Dead right, sir. And yet several new Physical laws waiting to take place , for yet another brand new events to occur in our ever changing Universe. LOL....... we won't not even know everything about our brain issues, let alone the everlasting unsolved questions of science. First off, people seem to forget that human development historically depended a good deal on the revolutionary deeds of genius mindsets, and we won't ever know exactly why these people soar above the rest of us ... As human history tells, people like them were capable of revolutionizing even our current understanding of the very laws of the universe, but our full understanding of how their minds work will likely never happen either.... And let us face our today's miserable reality: the ever increasing lack of support can stunt prospects for potential geniuses, they never get the chance to be productive, let alone people born into poverty or oppression who don’t get a shot at working toward anything other than staying alive. . ------------- The overwhelming amount of information on a daily basis restrains people from rewinding the news record archives to refresh their memories... |
Posted By: moshkito
Date Posted: May 18 2019 at 11:50
NOT INSANE (!!!!!!!!) ------------- Music is not just for listening ... it is for LIVING ... you got to feel it to know what's it about! Not being told! www.pedrosena.com |
Posted By: CosmicVibration
Date Posted: May 18 2019 at 17:30
What “new Physical laws”? Yes, the universe may be changing, evolving and growing but it’s doing so with fixed laws that are exact and precise. |
Posted By: Tillerman88
Date Posted: May 18 2019 at 19:17
|
^We see here an example of a typical conceptualisation, by yours truly. No one can deny that the laws of physics aren’t the forces of the universe. Putting it in other words, the forces of the universe are observed and conceptualised into clearly defined models that represent the effects of these forces. Even the most realistic scientific model ever accomplished by exhaustive observations and experimentations can't ever be completely separated from the conceptualisation aspect, because it's inherent to the finite human mind. Conceptualisation literally takes us apart from the actual thing going on... In the scientific world, the limitations of the human mind becomes always apparent...... it's very unlikely we could ever prove the laws of physics must exist in a permanent, eternal state, IMO. . ------------- The overwhelming amount of information on a daily basis restrains people from rewinding the news record archives to refresh their memories... |
Posted By: ExittheLemming
Date Posted: May 19 2019 at 00:04
|
This Arsenal supporting mathematician does articulatequite well the impossibility of predicting a dice throw (or even his beloved Gooners' future results) citing Poincare's chaos theory and Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle referred to in an earlier post by omphaloskepsis -------------
|
Posted By: 2dogs
Date Posted: May 19 2019 at 06:20
|
I'm very impressed by what hard science has found out about physical things like the structure, workings and evolution of the universe and living things, but other interesting topics such as the nature of consciousness or meaningful coincidences are outside its remit. ------------- "There is nothing new except what has been forgotten" - Marie Antoinette |
Posted By: Triceratopsoil
Date Posted: May 19 2019 at 13:04
| https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124" rel="nofollow - No, https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scientific-reproducibility/" rel="nofollow - Science https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/scientific-peer-reviews-are-a-sacred-cow-ready-to-be-slaughtered-says-former-editor-of-bmj-10196077.html" rel="nofollow - will https://arxiv.org/abs/1603.07532" rel="nofollow - always https://medium.com/@drjasonfung/the-corruption-of-evidence-based-medicine-killing-for-profit-41f2812b8704" rel="nofollow - "know" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-bYAQ-ZZtEU" rel="nofollow - exactly https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/17/magazine/ancient-dna-paleogenomics.html" rel="nofollow - what https://quillette.com/2018/09/07/academic-activists-send-a-published-paper-down-the-memory-hole/" rel="nofollow - corporations https://www.psychologytoday.com/ca/blog/rabble-rouser/201310/liberal-bias-in-social-psychology-personal-experience-ii" rel="nofollow - and https://blog.minitab.com/blog/adventures-in-statistics-2/not-all-p-values-are-created-equal" rel="nofollow - governments https://io9.gizmodo.com/i-fooled-millions-into-thinking-chocolate-helps-weight-1707251800" rel="nofollow - want https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/full/10.1161/circresaha.114.303819" rel="nofollow - it https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1420798/" rel="nofollow - to |
Posted By: moshkito
Date Posted: May 19 2019 at 19:23
.... or religions don't want you to talk about .... ------------- Music is not just for listening ... it is for LIVING ... you got to feel it to know what's it about! Not being told! www.pedrosena.com |
Posted By: 2dogs
Date Posted: May 19 2019 at 23:01
Good set of links there - that is why I mentioned the “hard” science attempting to discover the truth rather than sell pharmaceuticals, cosmetics and foods. I hadn’t been thinking of censorship but yes some truths may not be accessible by everyone due to suppression by ideological, religious or financial authorities. ------------- "There is nothing new except what has been forgotten" - Marie Antoinette |
Posted By: Tillerman88
Date Posted: May 20 2019 at 13:24
|
http://hubblesite.org/news_release/news/2019-25 "New physics may be needed to rectify the universe's past and present behavior." "Something is amiss in astronomers' efforts to measure the past and predict the present, according to a discrepancy between the two main techniques for measuring the universe's expansion rate – a key to understanding its history and physical parameters." "Theorists must find an explanation for the disparity that could rattle ideas about the very underpinnings of the universe." "Astronomers using NASA's Hubble Space Telescope say they have crossed an important threshold in revealing a discrepancy between the two key techniques for measuring the universe's expansion rate. The recent study strengthens the case that new theories may be needed to explain the forces that have shaped the cosmos." "These most precise Hubble measurements to date bolster the idea that new physics may be needed to explain the mismatch. " "The Hubble tension between the early and late universe may be the most exciting development in cosmology in decades," said lead researcher and Nobel laureate Adam Riess of the Space Telescope Science Institute (STScI) and Johns Hopkins University, in Baltimore, Maryland. "This mismatch has been growing and has now reached a point that is really impossible to dismiss as a fluke. This disparity could not plausibly occur just by chance." "This is not just two experiments disagreeing," Riess explained. "We are measuring something fundamentally different. One is a measurement of how fast the universe is expanding today, as we see it. The other is a prediction based on the physics of the early universe and on measurements of how fast it ought to be expanding. If these values don't agree, there becomes a very strong likelihood that we're missing something in the cosmological model that connects the two eras." . ------------- The overwhelming amount of information on a daily basis restrains people from rewinding the news record archives to refresh their memories... |
Posted By: jamesbaldwin
Date Posted: May 20 2019 at 17:06
|
I guess it was Einstein who said: Every scientific discovery opens a door that was closed, and opening that door, we discover seven other closed doors that we did not see before. ------------- "Happiness is real only when shared" |
Posted By: Chaser
Date Posted: May 21 2019 at 06:06
These are all good quotes, but nothing suggests that any of this CANNOT be known, only that it is not known at the present time. It would still be possible to envisage a future time when these questions have been answered. ------------- Songs cast a light on you |
Posted By: Tillerman88
Date Posted: May 21 2019 at 09:14
Yeah , who dares to disprove that please throw the first stone. ------------- The overwhelming amount of information on a daily basis restrains people from rewinding the news record archives to refresh their memories... |
Posted By: Icarium
Date Posted: May 21 2019 at 09:47
|
According to Richard Fineman, the goal of science is not to know things but for the joy of finding things out and the aww of discovering a solution to a new puzle. Science is not to find a satisgying answer but to always seek to always persue the fact that you really dont know. -------------  
|
Posted By: Frenetic Zetetic
Date Posted: June 27 2019 at 05:08
|
Not with its present ontological and epistemological assumptions. ------------- "I am so prog, I listen to concept albums on shuffle." -KMac2021 |
Posted By: moshkito
Date Posted: June 27 2019 at 08:11
Geeeee ... Einstein read THE BARDO? ------------- Music is not just for listening ... it is for LIVING ... you got to feel it to know what's it about! Not being told! www.pedrosena.com |
Posted By: dr wu23
Date Posted: June 27 2019 at 13:02
|
Regarding the OP question.....science might know everything...in 10,000 years...assuming anyone is still around then. ;) ------------- One does nothing yet nothing is left undone. Haquin |
Posted By: AFlowerKingCrimson
Date Posted: June 27 2019 at 13:17
|
Some people place too much stock in scientific knowledge. What I mean by that is if science doesn't prove it or it's not a scientific fact then they don't believe in it or even the possibility of it. So here is a list of things these kinds of people don't believe in: The possibility of god or any kind of "supreme being" Ufos and the possibility of alien life ever visiting this planet Ghosts Life after death/the after life (also past lives, future lives etc) Big foot, lochness monster or any other unexplained phenomena All I'm saying is that imo science does not and cannot explain everything. If you look back in history there was a time when people thought the earth was flat and that the sun revolved around the earth etc. Science has caught up to those things and it's likely it will catch up to other things we don't have scientific evidence for. I am a fan of science. I like science. However, I also try to keep an open mind with things.
|
Posted By: Jaketejas
Date Posted: June 27 2019 at 13:43
|
Add to the list 1. The existence of a being or beings or dimensions outside of our known universe unmeasurable by our science. While we may be confined to our time and space, this does not mean that they (if they exist) are. 2. Moral law is difficult to explain on the basis of science, and human decisions often run contradictory to what would be expected by science. 3. If bubble universes exist, we may never see them. 4. If we exist in an orthogonal space to another ... or a repeating space ... etc etc we may never know. 5. If the universe expands and contracts like a yo yo or just expands ... |
Posted By: Logan
Date Posted: June 28 2019 at 12:00
|
^^ A lot of people who complain about science don't really understand it or the scientific method. Science does not deal with proof, it deals with evidence and presents tentative models for better understanding how things work. In science, it's about evidence as there is no proof (proof is used in logic, mathematics and law). It's not a closed system and every theory is open to questioning, adaptation or scrapping when new evidence comes to light. Science is about trying to understand how the universe works, but it shouldn't be making absolute truth claims as everything is open to reevaluation. Hypotheses, theories and claims are provisional and tentative; they are subject to change. One tries to present the best models. And the scientific method deals with that which is falsifiable, in other words that which could be proven "wrong". Of course I said In science there is no proof, but at the same time mathematics and logic are incorporated. A less confusing way to put it might be to say "could be demonstrated"or "shown" rather than "proven" (rather too depends on what one means by proof, as well as what constitutes evidence, and wrong can be a tricky word...). I don't believe anything with absolute certainty, and I prefer not to believe things without what I think are good reasons to believe in them. I am a sceptic. I don't claim to know what is possible or true in regards to many things. I studied philosophy far more than science, and I like this from Plato, paraphrased, "The first step on the road to wisdom is the recognition of one's own ignorance." Those who dismiss science because it can't answer everything, nor does it deal with everything, I think are rather missing the point and beauty of science.
------------- https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLXcp9fYc6K4IKuxIZkenfvukL_Y8VBqzK" rel="nofollow - Various music I am very into: a youtube playlist with two tracks per act |
Posted By: Jaketejas
Date Posted: June 28 2019 at 12:25
| I use science everyday in my work. It's a great tool, despite its limitations |
Posted By: Jaketejas
Date Posted: June 28 2019 at 18:26
| The Hubble telescope images are amazingly beautiful. I have a poster from NASA with some of the more interesting images. I've always been particularly fascinated by pulsars, which are natural synchrotrons. Of course, we are looking into the past. |
Posted By: siLLy puPPy
Date Posted: June 28 2019 at 19:13
Science is a tool only corrupted by OUR limitations those being spiritual (how to direct it) and intellectual (the limits of our present abilities. The process itself is a methodology that if used uncorrupted becomes a self-correcting system. However there existst much phony science for political or economic purposes so as a tool can be used for the greatest good or the most horrendous evil. ------------- https://rateyourmusic.com/~siLLy_puPPy |
Posted By: Jaketejas
Date Posted: June 28 2019 at 19:55
Correction: ... despite the limits of detection of the instruments I use in my job. I would also like to clarify that I am not Dr. Evil. (Actually, I'm not sure I follow the logic here ... who are you saying is corrupting science? Are you talking about ethics?) |
Posted By: siLLy puPPy
Date Posted: June 28 2019 at 21:26
|
^ it's a general statement. I'm talking about the fact that science can tell you HOW to build the car but cannot tell you WHERE to drive it. Those are two different aspects of reality. The WHY you want to build it or even drive it is yet another question altogether. I guess what i'm saying is that science is not the be all end all for every possible solution but has been very helpful for human evolution. While scientists were the equivalent of rock stars before the atomic bomb, the realization that the same methodology that saved countless lives could also be used to destroy them. As a science major for ten years in college i can atttest to the fact that it is used for both. ------------- https://rateyourmusic.com/~siLLy_puPPy |
Posted By: Jaketejas
Date Posted: June 28 2019 at 22:19
| Good points! And that having these bombs keeps the other who has these bombs in check. For a reality check on that, you might check out the flick April 19th. I don't know why I keep using the word check. I'm tired and I'm checking out. |