The Scientific Dark ages 2012> ? Short version and note. I have been providing a short version of some of my long complicated posts, for obvious reasons! However I suggest for this thread unless one has a good scientific back ground the entire boring thing be read. The kind of Short version. Science has arrived at its limits. The math and other tools that once perfectly described our universe both big and small are no longer useful to describe the big questions. Those are what happened before the big bang or what lies inside singularities of black holes, a domain where time does not exist and all our rules of science break down. I make a point in the thread that metaphysics is a valid alternative way probe and maybe understand how the universe works ie the workings of singularities of the Big Bang and Black Holes. Unless we discover a working theory for quantum gravity which is very unlikely, we are in a dark age of science right now and have been at least concerning the big question for eighty years. The Looooong version ha ha~ The new dark age of science or the Metaphysical Renaissance of 'God did it'~ I was watching a science program* on the science channel last night where physicists were lamenting the sad fact that the physics and science that described the universe perfectly for 80 years was wrong or incomplete of faulty. Specifically they were talking about being unable to merge the world of the very big with the world of the very small, i.e. quantum theory with classical theory, such as Einsteins theory of relativity etc. Since those two theories could not be made to work together our science was useless when we are trying to describe what happens inside a black hole or what happened before t-0 of the big bang (before) the singularity and the universe began to exist. The trouble is that this stump has been troubling science for eight plus decades. Einstein spent the last years of his life trying to merge the two theories. * beware of what is called science on the discovery channel or the science channel (both the same company) etc. I have noticed so many glaring errors that a good 5th grade student would spot. That goes for the history channel too. Our science simply collapses if we try to discover what made the big bang begin. I suspect we are entering a dark ages of science. Even with our latest tools like the super-collider at CERN and the smaller one in the USA, our new satellites, the questions are even more numerous than ever. However for the religious or spiritual minded, the answer has been around 2000 years or more. The reason science fails at the singularity of the big bang is that the creation of the universe is beyond the reach of our current scientific tools. God created the universe, probably as per the KCA. I believe that QFT and Classical theory may never be merged in a compatible manner, unless we open our eyes and make a paradigm shift of how we investigate subjects like singularities, where time stops and our scientific tools are forbidden to enter. The only thing left is the spiritual non-tangible tools of the human mind and soul. Philosophy 'neo-natural' science, and metaphysics trump the old science called positive science aka the scientific method. Philosophy ie metaphysics (think Kurt Godel) have no such limitations as our remarkable but useless tools of science when it comes to what happens inside singularities. Save for some kind of astonishing new physics or a new type of fundamental physics or even a new scientific break through that marries quantum physics with classical physics I fear we are indeed entering a scientific dark age. ~reva~
Short answer; Rubbish! Long answer; This is yet another repetition of the old canard that because we haven't (yet, maybe) been able to apply scientific method to answer every single question ever asked, science has "failed" so it should be thrown away and replaced with something else (often, as in this case, a specifically defined yet totally unproven - even via philosophy - God). Regardless of what people on TV programs may or may not have said, science is still perfectly valid for the countless things we currently use it for and much, much more. It even remains valid for many of the things we've so far been unable to answer - the failing there isn't scientific method as a concept but our limitations in applying it. There are gaps, possible unassailable gaps, in our understanding of the universe. They're not gaps in or of science though - if we could somehow access all the raw information necessary, scientific method could be applied to understand it. There could well be fundamental practical problems with that though, akin to being unable to look at your own eyeball or observing the surface of a box you're inside. That isn't to say that philosophy or metaphysics (however you're defining it) aren't valid tools as well. There is absolutely no need to throw away science to use them though. Indeed, it could be that only a combination can allows us to fully or better understand some things. None of this justifies simply throwing in the term "God" in to the mix though. Regardless of the methodology you wish to use, you'd need to present a whole load more than throw-away comments about 2000 years of history (a blink of an eye in the grand scheme of things) to start making definitive statements about specific divine beings and their actions. Condemning science and promoting philosophy simply as a means to promote a religious idea would be grossly dishonest and I hope that wasn't your intention.
not much bigger than descibing the universe and no god talks about that, people do. the BIG question is how the transition of mass, energy and time works. but from a big galaxy to a big group of galaxies, without science, the morons of the world wouldnt even know the word "galaxy". what 'singularity' and what 'black hole'? neither, like every god, has ever been proven to exist. the black hole is like the 'gods' of the morons, a fignewton of the imagination, a manmade idea gravity is the entangled energy between points in time for example: my good looks are prehaps why you are so attracted to me but just so each have a chance to get out of this thread, early..................... the op has zero credibility
Hmm'. You must of read the short version. No, even though the word metaphysics has a double meaning I was referring to its technical form, that's the reason I gave Kurt Godel as a keyword reference. It's a branch of science and philosophy, Google positive science metaphysical science. Or Google Kurt Godel the metaphysics vs the positivists at the Vienna Circle, Or check out this link. ; DOC] ON KURT GÖDEL'S PHILOSOPHY OF MATHEMATICS www.cse.fau.edu/~marty/godel.doc File Format: Microsoft Word - Quick View by MK Solomon - Related articles ON KURT GÖDEL'S PHILOSOPHY OF MATHEMATICS. by ... By Platonic metaphysics, we of course mean that abstract objects have an objective existence. reva
Oops I meant to say I liked this post and hit the wrong button ....sorry! Will answer it soon, well so called honest Joes will be last...tit for tat eh? reva
When the tools we use to understand the universe become obsolete we just need to create new tools. For sure some things are beyond our brain's capacity to understand things but with observation and experimentation sooner or later we will learn to understand ( to use a B5 expression ) . I feel this is the golden age of science where we have learn everything we need to know for our level and now we need to make the jump to the next , it may be hard but we can do it , this is what humans do extent their horizons . God's people are just a gravitational force that keeps us spinning around conservativism before we are slingshot into progress and innovation, think of the renaissance , there wouldn't be any strong motivation to undo the Ptolemeic cosmotheory if the church wasn't so stubbornly attached to it . *galaxy = gala = milk , not a scientific term *metaphysics = meta/after or beyond and physis = nature indeed some things are beyond our nature but this doesn't mean that our nature isn't part of those things , we are a tiny part of the universe and it shouldn't be expected to enclose every part of it .
Yah, that was a great idea for the 60's. But don't you think it's time to take new evidence into account? Science and philosophy may have been the exact same thing 400 years ago, but there's a clear distinction now, don't you think?
I disagree on both points. Modern theology and some ancient theology* claims that our mind, or at least some of the dialog in the mind, is indeed God speaking to us. Our inner voice, ie our self awareness, our inner voice is how God communicates with us. Of course that is debatable. I am a proponent of mind brain duality. The second point that I disagree is what is the most important unanswered and currently (for 80 years) maybe the unanswerable question is a component of describing how the universe began. For the answer to that we must merge quantum and classical physics. No merge no working theory of quantum gravity, no theory of quantum gravity no way to discover what happens past the event horizon or before a few nano seconds before T -0 of the big bang and of course without a theory of quantum gravity there is no method to discover what caused the universe to begin to exist. At least with ‘hard’ (no philosophy no metaphysics) scientific explanations. So the largest and most important question/problem of science today is to merge quantum and classical physics. Answer that and we answer all. You said that time and gravity is not understood. I would only agree that you are half right …maybe. Einstein described how gravity worked very succinctly! Space time is curved and mass causes the ‘spacetime fabric’ to curve/distort. That is over simplified but it does give a very bare bones description as to how gravity works. I agree that time is somewhat not completely understood. I don’t think morons exist. Ignorance does and so does different IQ’s. Only ignorance is the fault of the owner. But that said, I love science. My favorite hobby second after custom Harley Davidson’s and motorcycle drag racing is astronomy cosmology. I am a serious armature astronomer. I think you and others mistake my criticize of science with a hate of science~ Ha ha! ~nothing could be farther from the truth! All singularities! Google it please. Briefly a singularity is what is left after a large star dies. it’s the center of a black hole, and there are millions of black holes in our galaxy alone. A black hole is the object that includes such things as a event horizon (a imaginary line where light can not escape due to its immense gravity, hence a black hole), and a singularity etc. That black holes and singularities exist is basic common science. Just Google black holes NASA. Or singularity of the big bang. (the big bang theory and its ’singularity’ has less empirical evidence than black holes. Where did you learn that? Not in school or in a text book I am sure. Gravity is caused by the bending of space by mass or velocity according to Einstein , ie; General relativity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_relativityThe relation is specified by the Einstein field equations, a system of partial differential equations. ... 7.1 Quantum field theory in curved spacetime; 7.2 Quantum gravity .... the connection that satisfies the equivalence principle and makes space .. Unless you are an unmarried female over 21, I am attracted to people because they are children of God IMO (so to speak). I am sorry you feel that way. However all my sources save of the theology, can be validated. Most of it is basic science. Maybe you should attempt to actually rebut with validated sources. Also please give proof or at least evidence of your claims where you seemly fabricate explanations of gravity etc. I have a lot of schooling and haven’t read or been taught any thing like some claims you make. When making such claims you should provide links to books or data that supports such outlandish remarks. Thanks for your replies. reva
I disagree on both points. Modern theology and some ancient theology* claims that our mind, or at least some of the dialog in the mind, is indeed God speaking to us. Our inner voice, ie our self awareness, our inner voice is how God communicates with us. Of course that is debatable. I am a proponent of mind brain duality. The second point that I disagree is what is the most important unanswered and currently (for 80 years) maybe the unanswerable question is a component of describing how the universe began. For the answer to that we must merge quantum and classical physics. No merge no working theory of quantum gravity, no theory of quantum gravity no way to discover what happens past the event horizon or before a few nano seconds before T -0 of the big bang and of course without a theory of quantum gravity there is no method to discover what caused the universe to begin to exist. At least with ‘hard’ (no philosophy no metaphysics) scientific explanations. So the largest and most important question/problem of science today is to merge quantum and classical physics. Answer that and we answer all. You said that time and gravity is not understood. I would only agree that you are half right …maybe. Einstein described how gravity worked very succinctly! Space time is curved and mass causes the ‘spacetime fabric’ to curve/distort. That is over simplified but it does give a very bare bones description as to how gravity works. I agree that time is somewhat not completely understood. I don’t think morons exist. Ignorance does and so does different IQ’s. Only ignorance is the fault of the owner. But that said, I love science. My favorite hobby second after custom Harley Davidson’s and motorcycle drag racing is astronomy cosmology. I am a serious armature astronomer. I think you and others mistake my criticize of science with a hate of science~ Ha ha! ~nothing could be farther from the truth! All singularities! Google it please. Briefly a singularity is what is left after a large star dies. it’s the center of a black hole, and there are millions of black holes in our galaxy alone. A black hole is the object that includes such things as a event horizon (a imaginary line where light can not escape due to its immense gravity, hence a black hole), and a singularity etc. That black holes and singularities exist is basic common science. Just Google black holes NASA. Or singularity of the big bang. (the big bang theory and its ’singularity’ has less empirical evidence than black holes. Where did you learn that? Not in school or in a text book I am sure. Gravity is caused by the bending of space by mass or velocity according to Einstein , ie; General relativity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_relativityThe relation is specified by the Einstein field equations, a system of partial differential equations. ... 7.1 Quantum field theory in curved spacetime; 7.2 Quantum gravity .... the connection that satisfies the equivalence principle and makes space .. [/QUOTE]for example: my good looks are perhaps why you are so attracted to me.[/QUOTE] Unless you are an unmarried female over 21, I am attracted to people because they are children of God IMO (so to speak). J but just so each have a chance to get out of this thread, early..................... the op has zero credibility[/QUOTE] I am sorry you feel that way. However all my sources save of the theology, can be validated. Most of it is basic science. Maybe you should attempt to actually rebut with validated sources. Also please give proof or at least evidence of your claims where you seemly fabricate explanations of gravity etc. I have a lot of schooling and haven’t read or been taught any thing like some claims you make. When making such claims you should provide links to books or data that supports such outlandish remarks. Thanks for your replies.
Well when I first read Hawking's papers (before he came out with a popular book) I thought he was speaking rubbish too. Some of it was rubbish, but the truth was I did not understand the advanced math and concepts he was using. Maybe you have a similar problem? (not that I am equal or even close to Hawking in my calculus ability but you get the point?). Remember the proverb or saying there is nothing new under the sun? That is true for many things, including science and theology. But the peripherals and details do change, sometimes profoundly so. Science has not failed in the way that you seem to claim. When I said science fails etc I mean science is a tool like any tool it does not work for some applications. Sometimes new tools must be created and produced. The nightmare that faces science today is that science does not know how to design much less produce the tools that answer the questions in the OT. As you mention I said and the great theoretical physicist Hawking agrees, we must make new tools of science or we nearly at a dead end. Worse unless something saves the current theories Physicists are worried that they have been wrong all along! Yes I said that in the OT. A huge contradiction! Are you sure you read the long version? I said in the OT that science does not have the tools to understand what happens past the event horizon or to describe a singularity in detail. Even as I touched on Stephen Hawking and most eminent Physicist lament that science needs a new physics to describe such things. Don’t get me wrong, I think we should continue to use current tools and develop new scientific tools to attempt to crack the big problems. I also think secular science should or at least consider alternative methods that are today taboo to science. In the past when entranced secular science ignored weird ideas sometimes they were valid, and the rejection out of hand of weird or taboo ideas set science back decades, not forward. Yes I said the same in the OT. Hmmm’ you seem hung up on thinking that I condemned science. Where exactly in the OT did I do that? Ha ha…re read the thread. The Looooobng version. What I really said and suggested that we may be entering a dark age of science unless we merge classical physics with quantum physics. (if both set of theories don’t have a fatal flaw which is also possible if not probable) . Until that happens or I suggest even after it happens we use all methods and ideas that are available to us even if unpalatable to modern entrenched secular science. Metaphysics includes religion so one goes hand in hand with the other. A brief definition of what I mean by metaphysics with emphasis on number two ; met·a·phys·ics [mèttə fízziks] or met·a·phys·ic [mèttə fízzik] n (takes a singular verb) 1. philosophy of being: the branch of philosophy concerned with the study of the nature of being and beings, existence, time and space, and causality 2. underlying principles: the ultimate underlying principles or theories that form the basis of a particular field of knowledge Symmetry is part of the metaphysics of quantum mechanics. 3. abstract thinking: abstract discussion or thinking Encarta ® World English Dictionary © & (P) 2004-2012 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved. I hope that definition clears up some confusion. I did think everyone knew what I meant by metaphysics especially considering the subject and after I suggested Googling Kurt Godel and the Circle. He was the only metaphysicist in the V Circle! reva
Moderator; Please delete the double unedited post (#12, I think, I cant see it from this page) to Mr B with the messed up quote tags. The forum server was jerking and stalling and would not allow me to delete the post due to a forum database error. By the time the forum unlocked and I could access the controls the unneeded useless middle school 20 min time limit expired. It might be ok if the forum ran like other forums but when we get database errors etc and it takes a half hour to post a reply at times I would like to see the function suspended, at least until our forum is fixed....thanks in advance I know the messed up server is not your department! reva
Yes I agree. However what is worrying Physicists (all scientists probably) is that the tools that we have used for a hundred years may be faulty. Add to that, the problem is so complex it appears that we do not know how to go about even asking the correct questions to design the new tools of math and physics. As I said I agree that we should continue to use the available tools, not give up on current scientific understanding, but to broaden what mainstream science now ridicules or ignores (at times). I am not a complete pessimist, but you are much more optimistic than I. I feel the last hundred years, especially the last 50 or so years has been profoundly golden. The next hundred? That depends on many things. For now I believe we are approaching an age where science will become at least 'stale', secular science being too happy with the status quo especially if they must entertain other ideas that are repulsive to them. Interesting take on the church! At least you seem to think its not the bane to science many unbelievers do. Anyway the church encouraged and funded a lot of scientific research. Its been said (not in scientific journals ha ha) that science probably would not have began or advanced as quickly as it did without the aid of the Church, to say nothing of the very early days when science priests of various religious beliefs existed, building monuments and creating the math necessary for such projects etc . On the other hand, yes I am aware of the Churches repressive hand in some areas of science and of the mistreatment (maybe read the full story and consider the time) of some famous scientists. This is not the correct thread to delve deeply into different subjects, but I will say the old Church was both government and religion. Not a good thing. So when science threatened the state, well its similar to a scientist today ignoring orders from the NSA. I do not use strictly 'science speak' when writing for a general 'audience'. If doing a doctoral dissertation I would consider it! (if I had that advanced education). Besides if I if I took the time to research the terminology etc no one would read it. Even now some members misunderstand certain terms. I would too if a thread was created with laywer speak, ie legalese. I am a theologian not a scientist, eh? Thanks for your reply~ reva
You must HAVE read the long version. Dont[sic] make me go back over all your one liners and find your errors! reva
rolls eyes. (I dont want to look for the emoticon). Name them. I hope that is the end of the one line 'not too well thought out' replies ( I am being nice). How's that for butchering the English language? What tools do we have for describing the details of a singularity? Answer; NONE. reva
In spite of uniformed opinions science is stronger today and learning more than at any point in history. This week the confirmation of a particle that meets all of the criteria of the Higgs boson was announced from tests at CERN which would further confirm the Standard Model of physics. Often referred to as the "God Particle" the Higgs boson removes any arguments for the "necessity" of god to create the universe. It provides the catalyst for the condensation of energy into matter during the forming of the universe. A huge scientific discovery that has been long predicted in physics. While the finding of the Higgs boson does finish the final chapter of the Standard Model there is so much more for the particle phycist to explore as is covered in the following article written prior to this weeks CERN experiment. http://news.yahoo.com/higgs-sterile...-lindau-nobel-laureate-meeting-151100208.html Of course particle physics is only a small branch of science and all branches are moving forward at an accellerated pace. In biology the scientists still seek to be able to reproduce life in the lab. They have demonstrated that inorganic compounds can create organic compounds. They've also demonstated in the lab that organic compounds can create the basic strands required for RNA and DNA. There is so much left to do in this field but little by little the scientists are making progress. It is anticipated that in the not too distant future inorganic compounds, through natural processes, make the transistions into organic compounds then developing DNA and eventually life in the lab. How life actually formed in nature will not only be explained but demonstated by science. Far from being the end of science we stand on new frontiers that boggle the imagination and we are movng forward at a pace that far exceeds anything that has happened previously. It has been estimated that the scientific knowledge today doubles in less than ten years where historically it took many centuries to double what was known by science. We're moving forward at an exponential rate. The "Golden Age of Science" is in our future and not in our past.
That was a flippant joke. I don't really think you're talking rubbish. Yes, I thought you had. A bit of communication failure around multiple uses of the word "science" to mean subtly different things. I do think your OP was still too harsh on "old science" or "scientific method" in describing it's failures though and could have better explained what seems to be a concept of simply extending on one aspect of science rather than some fundamental shift. You also threw me with the references to spirituality, religion and God, which are more commonly used to attack science than collaborate with it. I don't think the concept of God has any place in a discussion of methodology and the word spirituality remains entirely undefined as far as I can tell. Religion covers a vast base, often as not the practice of daydreaming through a service once a week. Some religion can include metaphysics but I wouldn't say metaphysics includes (all) religion. Quite frankly, if you want scientific concepts of metaphysics to be more accented by the mainstream, distancing it from matters of religious practice is probably a good start. So, I don't disagree with you as much as we both first thought. I'm personally perfectly open to other additional methods of investigating the universe but I don't think the (further) introduction of metaphysics is as grand a paradigm shift as you make it out to be. I'm sure plenty of scientists, especially ones working in this kind of field are open to philosophical views in addition to "conventionally" scientific ones. Staring at stars all day is bound to do that to a person.
Science didn't reach it's limit back then so what makes you think it has now? There's many different types of sciences, do you just mean physics? Or which ones do you think are going into the dark ages? And if something is untestable (presently) how do you make the logical leap that magic offers more answers? Besides, once a science has been conquered that's when we can really use it to make stuff. =)
SHUCKS! And we were just starting to get these integrated circuits to work like we wanted! Oh well. Pack it up, boys.
Oops ignore references to past replies, I got this reply mixed up with another higgs thread I was posting in! Sorry for the mistake~ I would edit but I am bumping against the dreaded 20min limit Well yes. I agreed in the OT that in the last hundred years scientific achievement and knowledge has increased dramatically. In particular the last fifty years of science etc achievement and knowledge has increased exponentially. So no disagreement there. However there is much misinformation etc about the nick name of the Higgs. Actually religion/metaphysics had nothing to do with it. A Nobel laureate physicist from Fermilab going by the name of Leon Lederman authored book in the 1990s about the scientific search for the Higgs boson. His publishers coined the term most likley as a marketing ploy. Lastly, the Higgs essentially completes the standard model of particle physics, so finding the massive and elusive scalar boson was a great relief to almost every (non string theory, non meta or many universe, etc) scientist in the world. Surprisingly finding Higgs was a boon to modern theologians as well as I indicated in my reply. Why are theologians meta physicist philosophers* happy? Because higgs verifies the standard theory as mentioned which lends more evidence to the one universe (vs. infinite universe theory or the MWI theory etc). All that lends more empirical evidence that supports the standard big bang model which likewise supports the KCA of William Craig and Dr Koon and other PhD supporters ie Modern Christian apologists. For those un familiar with the KCA of Craig simply Google reasonable faith KCA. If the higgs was not found or proved not to exist the KCA and similar ontological/cosmological arguments would probably be doomed. The non cyclic non hawking standard hot model of the big bang lives so the KCA is supported even more by the discovery of higgs. Not the other way round with all due respect. Due to having to describe the basics of why higgs is good for God did it this reply is long. I will answer the rest of you reply soon Shiva. reva
Discovering Higgs won't change the quantum physics involved in circuit design...well not until we begin seriously working on a quantum computer, even then I am fairly sure Higgs will not be necessary. Eh? Now higgs may be useful for a zero gravity device as its thought that the higgs field gives gravity a 'toe hold' on mass... reva
