Can science REALLY explain Reality?

[inocente]

300,000 km/sec, within a distance of a meter, is fast enough to be “instantaneous” for me. How does it really help me to know that it is ever so slightly slower than instantaneous?

Oh loads of ways, for instance refraction is caused by light changing speed between media, making eye glasses possible, etc.

Of course some say pursuing truth which has no application to their material well-being is not worth the while.

Precisely how has science "guided us to [any] agreement on ‘reality’? If it had, then we should clearly know what “reality” is, right?

In philosophy we have to choose between say, monism, dualism and pluralism, then select the particular school out of how many there might be, and do it on the basis of chicken entrails, i.e. value judgment. Well that’s no way to run a railroad.

In science, theories have to fit with observation and if there are competing theories of, say, gravity then one will get dropped in favor of the other (Newton’s theory is limited compared with Einstein’s). Whenever one theory rubs against another, there’s a means of selecting between them and a need to select (we only observe one world).

Science doesn’t explain anything like all of reality, there’s lots we don’t know, but we can at least be assured it is homing in on a shared, independent world.

 

[Gaber]

So would you say that those who know of science but are not, shall we say, “cutting edge” in their knowledge/skill level, are more likely to insist that there are “comfortable” boundaries – even as they cheer on their own heroes who not only see past those boundaries but go through them? It seems the BIG achievers all insist there is more out there that we cannot see, and they hint around that we may never see them. But that doesn’t sell to those who have been brainwashed by academia, society, bad religion, etc, into thinking everything is in a tidy little package and certified by some certifying agency, or it doesn’t exist. It’s like, why do these leaders say these things? Maybe it’s to encourage others to open their minds, rather than cluck about how weird they are compared to us. Why don’t we want to hear them? I guess we don’t like it when somebody other than the captain is rocking the boat.

Alan

Well put. No one, ordinarliy and as far as I know, can transmit Truth directly to what appears as another individual. But those who have gone beyond the ordinary serving suggestions of the discursive mins and the restrictions of consensus reality can come back wthi encouragement and a map to where they have been and what they have seen. If those enticements are offered by someone othere than who or what is accepted as orthodox, you become the pink monkey and need to fend for your reputaion or even life!
The greatest drive seems to be for equilibrium, which biologically is wonderful Mentally, and in the persuit of awareness and its Source, discomfort is deliberately sought by the curious who see that the picture as presented is not complete and is not accurate. But for most the inconsistencies of life are accepted as de rigeur and they live my platitudes, duck-billed and otherwise.

 

[inocente]

So do we exist as bubbles within God? Or, are we somehow just sooo different from Him that we are separate by difference? Or, does He exist, as we are told, “within all things?”

It’s not possible to separate an elephant from the rest of the universe and have it appear in another, i.e. everything which exists depends on everything else which exists or has ever existed.

Which isn’t to be mystic or fatalist or anything, it just means that the way we divide up the world into things is an artifact of how our minds work, even the words thing, everything and nothing are artifacts, the world isn’t really that way.

So along that line of thought, maybe we get to God when we leave behind the artifacts.

Is there the possibility of another form of physicality? Perceptual, perhaps? Read a few pages in the following: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=611129

Sure, it’s always possible, but personally I’m suspicious of whether such musings are agenda driven, fooling ourselves by wanting to believe in something. As Lawrence Krauss put it, the universe is the way it is whether we like it or not

*How certain are we that dimensionless exigencies constitute reality?

Repeatability in science does not equal certainty of reality*. There are inductions based upon unnecessarily repeatable dialectics that provide just as much certainty as does science (which, as you know, uses induction as well).

Doubt, not knowing absolutely, is part of reality. Pragmatically, we can only do our best.

Put another way, certainty is well overrated.

 

[Solus_vistor]

You have a very narrow and cliquish view of science.

It cracks me up how we run away from our giants – Tesla, Einstein, et al, when it comes to comments about the unseen. THEY wouldn’t know anything about REAL science, would they?

If science is not the study of physical (as opposed to spiritual) phenomena, then what is it? Could you, please, quote Einstein where he says science is not about studying physical phenoemna, or where he describes what he means by “REAL science” as opposed to mere (natural) science?

As for Tesla, see e.g. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikola_Tesla#Field_theories for his views about Einstein’s theory of gravity.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

If science is not the study of physical (as opposed to spiritual) phenomena, then what is it? Could you, please, quote Einstein where he says science is not about studying physical phenoemna, or where he describes what he means by “REAL science” as opposed to mere (natural) science?

One example: tell me what he means, if not what he says:

Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.

As for Tesla, see e.g. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikola_Tesla#Field_theories for his views about Einstein’s theory of gravity.

Interesting. Tesla championed studying what couldn’t be seen, but himself had a limited mind. Right?

I guess we’re in good company.

Alan

 

[vincent22]

A scientist can explain reality but not with sufficient verisimilitude to claim an accurate reflection.

What a scientifc explanation does is represent reality.

Representations of reality rest upon the scientific language called Math. Since the rules of mathematics are fixed, scientific explanations of reality reflect the certitude of mathematical reasoning accurately. 2+2 is always 4. And it is this method of human reasoning from mathematical rules which a scientific theory will demonstrate accurately …not reality.

Because mathematics is a mere construct of man’s fallible will, we have never been able to rely upon it to determine reality. The consistency of accurate Weather Forecasts will indeed testify to this …perfectly !

 

[Solus_vistor]

The question remains as to how and where one draws the line between ‘physical’ and ‘non-physical’ phenomena, and further, between natural and non-natural phenomena.

Note that the term non-physical phenomena came from a quote from Tesla, I did not introduce it. You are right that if phenomenon refers to what is observable in the usual meaning of the word, then to use the adjective physical (I don’t see the difference between physical and natural) when speaking of phenomena is as superfluous as using the adjective natural when speaking of science (except when one wants to emphasize that social sciences are not meant).

Kant uses the term phenomenon to contrast it with noumenon or Ding an sich (i.e. “thing-in-itself”) that by its very definition cannot be observed. I don’t know if he distinguishes between what could be called physical and what non-physical phenomena.

 

[Solus_vistor]

One example: tell me what he means, if not what he says:

Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.

This well known insight does not indicate that he would understand by science anything different from what scientists in general understand. It appears in the following context:

“But science can only be created by those who are thoroughly imbued with the aspiration toward truth and understanding. This source of feeling, however, springs from the sphere of religion. To this there also belongs the faith in the possibility that the regulations valid for the world of existence are rational, that is, comprehensible to reason. I cannot conceive of a genuine scientist without that profound faith. The situation may be expressed by an image: science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind”. (quoted from the essay Science and Religion update.uu.se/~fbendz/library/ae_scire.htm).

He might have not known, but he paraphrased Kant’s dictum about concepts and intuition: Concepts without intuition are lame, intuition without concepts is blind.

Compare also with philosophy of science without scientific (name removed by moderator)ut is empty, while science without philosophical guidance is blind. (philosophynow.org/issues/82/Hawking_contra_Philosophy)

 

[Julia_Mae]

Sorry Julia, I’m not going to search through 2,900 posts to find them.

They don’t exist. No one here has ever told you that you were going to hell.

Interesting that you pick me up on that when the main clause of my sentence was about those who claim the mind is supernatural yet never substantiate the claim.

I already did, you didn’t want to follow up apparently. I’ve posted this info over and over. It’s right online for anyone who wants to find out the facts and has the stones to accept it. That doesn’t include sair or you, in my experience.

Have they? Repeatably? Interesting, could you give a few examples?

Yeah, as soon as you give me a link to any post where anyone told you that you were going hell here on CAF. The difference is: I’m not blowing smoke up your skirt.

Look, we end up in the same place in every thread. The science is done, has been done, has been repeated, has been published. It ain’t some big secret. You don’t want to know because it will disturb your quaint atheist reality with the nice neat paradigms that actually don’t exist. I’ve already left sufficient links. You and sair ignore them.

Fine, be comfortable. Just stop claiming the objective highground when what you actually display is intellectual cowardice.

 

[tonyrey]

A scientist can explain reality but not with sufficient verisimilitude to claim an accurate reflection.

What a scientific explanation does is represent reality.

Representations of reality rest upon the scientific language called Math. Since the rules of mathematics are fixed, scientific explanations of reality reflect the certitude of mathematical reasoning accurately. 2+2 is always 4. And it is this method of human reasoning from mathematical rules which a scientific theory will demonstrate accurately …not reality.

Because mathematics is a mere construct of man’s fallible will, we have never been able to rely upon it to determine reality. The consistency of accurate Weather Forecasts will indeed testify to this …perfectly !

Welcome to the forum!
I agree that a scientific explanation represents physical reality but not that “mathematics is a mere construct of man’s fallible will”. The fact that science can represent physical reality with an extremely high degree of mathematical accuracy is convincing evidence that it is not arbitrary but corresponds to physical facts - like unity, duality and multiplicity for a start.

Having lived in Africa for a long time I can assure you British weather is a law unto itself - and not the only example - but not a good basis for generalisation!

 

[Solus_vistor]

SV: To back track a bit, I forgot to welcome you to CAF. So, let me take this opportunity to do just that!

Thanks.

Biblically, we read that God is Infinite and IN all things. Our physicality cannot and does not displace anything that is God.

I agree.

But, as we know, scientists, in some parts, don’t like those words and, in fact, are often want to repudiate them.)

I agree, especially the materialists among them will not like the adjective “physical” or “material” since in their world-view everything that exists is material. Scientists when “doing science” do not speculate about what is physical, what might or might not be spiritual, what exists and in what sense. Some of them - perhaps mainly theoretical physicists and cosmologists - might think about these things when they “philosophize”.

Einstein said that what we know (and I presume “see”) is a “persistent illusion.” I think he was quite correct.

His “reality is merely an illusion although a very persistent one” is often being quoted though I could not find out in what context he said/wrote that. Knowing other Einstein’s philosophy of science views I would gather that he meant this simply as a warning against the naive conflation of representations/models (that e.g. theoretical physics works with) with what is being represented/modeled.

To assume that we exist over here, and He over there, is anthropomorphic absurdity.

I agree; an absurdity also because the use of the words here and there suggests space, which is dependent on matter studied by science.

Strings or string beans, it makes no difference.

I am not sure what insight does this bring into physicists’ attempts to understand God’s creation i.e. to read “the Book of Nature written in the language of mathematics” as Galileo put it centuries before people embarked on gravitation theory, quantum physics, superstring theories, etc.

There is an earlier thread herein called, “God exists, but how?” Here’s its link. forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=322104

Thanks, I shall certainly look at it more thoroughly. Nevertheless, let me already say this:

yppop starts with “the premise: God exists”. The logically opposite premise would be, of course, God does not exist. He - and you and I - accept the first premise. However, a present day atheist does not understand what is meant by God (or he/she pretends so). Therefore, when trying to explain my position to atheists or agnostics I start with the two alternatives: The Cosmos - i.e. the material world that science investigates or can principally investigate - is all that exists, all there is as Carl Sagan put it. Or it is not so.

Only if somebody is willing to accept the second alternative (either as a believer, or just as a working hypothesis) can one continue to try to explain, and argue for, the Christian understanding of this extended reality. One still has to clarify what one means by the “material world investigated by contemporary science”. Not an easy task as we have seen, however accessible also to a non-believer at an appropriate level.

Why do I prefer to approach the problem from these premises? For the last year or so the Pope has been talking about the need for a New Evangelization of the West, especially Western Europe. (I know, a non-Christian, would prefer the term dialogue rather than evangelization.) In the past when a missionary went out to evangelize “pagans” the first thing he had to learn was the language they spoke, they could understand. And for the Western atheist the language he/she speaks, or thinks he/she does, is science, often used - or rather abused - as a kind of ersatz-religion (c.f. Richard Dawkins).

I know, evangelization is done foremost on the psychological and not rational or philosophical level. However I, as a (retired) mathematician, feel more comfortable on the second level. That is also the main reason I decided to take part on this kind of discussions (on this thread as a well as on a parallel thread inhabited mostly by atheists).

God bless.

 

[vincent22]

Yes but 'corresponding ’ to something is only relative .

Thank you for your welcome . God bless Vince

agree that a scientific explanation represents physical reality but not that “mathematics is a mere construct of man’s fallible will”. The fact that science can represent physical reality with an extremely high degree of mathematical accuracy is convincing evidence that it is not arbitrary but corresponds to physical facts - like unity, duality and multiplicity for a start.

Having lived in Africa for a long time I can assure you British weather is a law unto itself - and not the only example - but not a good basis for generalisation!

 

[Philipp]

It’s not possible to separate an elephant from the rest of the universe and have it appear in another, i.e. everything which exists depends on everything else which exists or has ever existed. [Lawrence Krauss, cosmologist mentioned later]

Philipp: I visited a few Internet sites in which Lawrence Krauss lectured a bit on Star Trek and why “Beam me up Scotty” will never work because of the Heisenberg Principle of physics. A good analogy was provided. It brought back memories of my college days taking nuclear physics and radiochemistry many moons ago. Both Krauss who tells us how the universe created itself from nothing and his friend Richard Dawkins, the biologist need to come down to earth now and then and get a taste of reality from sciences that have converged to make an opposite point by introducing the Intelligent Designer.

They need to check out the latest research studies in chemistry, physics, biology and sedimentology and even archaeology that have converged to cast doubt on their cosmological intellectural ramblings. Of course I don’t expect them to lower themselves to return to Mother Earth and get their hands dirty as it’s more fun for them to have their heads in the galaxies and/or microscopes and receive adulation from their followers who also don’t know what they are talking about.

Innocente: Sure, it’s always possible, but personally I’m suspicious of whether such musings are agenda driven, fooling ourselves by wanting to believe in something. As Lawrence Krauss correctly admitted, the universe is the way it is whether we like it or not

Philipp:

By returning to Earth occasionally perhaps Krauss and Dawkins might finally realize that reality is better found on Earth as Emmanuel Velikovsky learned from his studies of world-wide bone graveyards etc. and reported in his books Earth in Upheavel and Ages in Chaos. Toward the end of their lives both Velikovsky and his friend, Albert Einstein were reported to be on the same wave length regarding scripture and the greatest catastrophe of all as reported by Moses [Moshe]. Look at the moon and the other planets and their moons - craters everywhere from one or more catastrophes. The earth has more than a hundred or so but hey are covered by sediments from water deposition, now rock.

Innocente: Doubt, not knowing absolutely, is part of reality. Pragmatically, we can only do our best.

Philipp:: I agree but when a number of Earth sciences converge that’s when realilty is the strongest and *we can do our best * and must do so by multiple experimental testing for even more reliability. The Cosmology of Krauss can not do that as they only look up. It is as he said: The universe is the way it is whether we like it or not.

Innocente: Put another way, certainty is well overrated.

Philipp: As the Heisenberg principle seems to confirm with the laws of thermodynamics suggesting there was NO Big Bang as it is now explained to us - everything from nothing?

 

[AlanFromWichita]

I don’t exist.

 

[Philipp]

I don’t exist.

Right, accept by the grace of God!

 

[JDaniel]

This has been covered in numerous places before by much better philosophers than me - the credulity required for common natural claims like the existence of parents is orders of magnitude less than that required for supernatural claims. We know how humans are produced, so it’s no leap of faith to assume that every extant human had parents, even if those parents are now dead. We are even now at the stage where we can obtain genetic information from a person relating to the genetic makeup of their parents. Seems all fair and above-board to me.

Sair:

Intriguing. And, what shall we do about the presuppositions that lead up to all that? Presuppositions like, the reality of entities constituting so-called matter, i.e., electrons, protons, neutrons, bosons, fermions, and quarks; or, people and things actually having mass; or, everything in our view being much more than merely hologramic; or, that we, in fact, cause effects?

In any case, my analogy was intended to go beyond claims about imaginary parents - I was merely picking up the theme suggested by “filial ingratitude” in the post to which I was replying. The point was to illustrate that in order to demonstrate the existence of god, it requires more than mere insistence that he exists, and the claim to indirect evidence of the kind made by those who say the whole of the universe is evidence of god. It’s not - it’s evidence of the universe and all its phenomena, and increasingly is evidence of a universe that doesn’t need outside intervention in order to exist.

Really? So, dimensionless point particles and invisible space not only cause all of that to occur, but also, provide the evidence for it? Don’t you understand that these things cannot do anything by themselves? The lattice of discrete space and dimensionless point particles requires power that they do not possess, even if taken as a whole.

So, much as most Christian believers toss out the history and traditions of every other faith that humans have ever invented, you mean?

This sounds a tad like a conflation of other “Christian religions” with Catholicism, does it not?

Anyway, good Catholics should respect other religions - at least those based on Jesus Christ, His Passion, Crucifixion, and Resurrection. Those that aren’t, well, usually there is no deity to throw out. But, since we’re in a Catholic forum, I don’t spend too much time commiserating on what other Christian religions do. And to be precise, neither should you.

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

Two things I thought were quite obvious - it’s a fact that people imagine things. Are you going to claim now that the contents of human imagination are not part of reality?

Sair:

Maybe. Would you mind giving me your definition of “reality?” (We’ve got to start somewhere.)

It may well be the case that unicorns do not exist as separate entities, but it’s clear to any student of mythology and fantasy literature that they most certainly exist as concepts held within human minds, often translated into other media such as written descriptions, paintings, sculpture and so on.

And your contention is that we can clearly know the difference?

Now, it may well be that the existence of god is no different. I’m more than happy to concede that many people entertain the concept of god. Even I have a concept of god. But this should make it obvious why, if one is attempting to demonstrate the existence of one’s particular concept of a deity, as something other than a concept, then it’s important to define what that deity is and what would count as evidence for it.

Clearly, you know very little about Catholicism, Theology and Catholic philosophy.

It’s easy enough to examine the claims made about Yahweh, as a tribal war god who actively intervenes in human affairs, and say such a being does not exist, any more than do the gods of the ancient Greek or Roman pantheons, or indeed any other prominent mythological figure.

Irrelevant.

On the other hand, if you’re going to say, “Oh, but God is love” or some other such vague statement equating god with a collection of human concepts and experiences, then it’s easy enough to point to people’s shared experiences of love, for example, and claim it as evidence of your god. But in the end, that is at least as bald an assertion as any of which you’ve accused me. I accept that love exists and even experience it for myself, but I don’t call it god.

I happen to think that God is Love too. But, He is also that power that I mentioned earlier. Tonyrey has spent a large part of his life, in these forums, attempting to make it clear to everyone that non-dimensional, purposeless, non-directed exigencies cannot do the things that you, and others, like to accuse them of doing. The chances of a life making/sustaining universe happening by itself are so many orders of magnitude greater than the acceptance of “God,” that I have no choice but to concede to its impossibility.

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

You mean the power to contemplate our own insignificance? I know. Insufferably arrogant, aren’t we?

Sair:

No; actually I meant the “power to be causal”. However, I agree with your sentiment too!

God bless,
jd

 

[Sair]

Sair:

No; actually I meant the “power to be causal”. However, I agree with your sentiment too!

God bless,
jd

Considering that from a naturalistic perspective, subatomic particles, atoms, molecules, bacteria and many other things smaller and less capable than humans have the power to be causal (and by the way, the bacterial cells contained within our bodies actually outnumber the human cells; and what’s more, we couldn’t function without those bacterial cells - just to throw that out there) I don’t know that our powers of causality, as such, are anything that set us above other organisms or natural forces. Just saying…

 

[Sair]

Sair:

Maybe. Would you mind giving me your definition of “reality?” (We’ve got to start somewhere.)

The simplest definition is “that which exists”. Human imagination quite evidently exists - and may indeed be the one thing that sets us apart from other animals and has enabled us to achieve such phenomenal success as a species.

And your contention is that we can clearly know the difference?

My contention is that it’s possible to know the difference, and that mind-independent evidence is the key to discerning this difference. It’s quite obvious that there are those who have difficulty distinguishing between the content of their imagination and the world outside their heads! Indeed, some conditions we classify as mental illnesses actually manifest in this way. Having said that, there are plenty of people who are happy to enjoy the idea of unicorns, but accept that they most likely don’t exist outside imagination. The same goes for Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny, and sundry other creatures of fantasy.

Clearly, you know very little about Catholicism, Theology and Catholic philosophy.

My experience of Catholicism involved being raised from earliest infancy to believe that god exists. This was generally stated as a given - no need to define and prove. If anything, definition and demonstration were held to be “inferior” ways of knowing that god exists - enter the increasingly vague descriptions of what god actually is. I’ve certainly been told that it’s possible to know that the Catholic concept of god exists by pure reason, but on the other hand, I don’t believe reason is possible without its natural underpinnings. Nor do I think that our ability to imagine an entity automatically translates to the existence of that entity independently of human minds.

Irrelevant.

Why is it irrelevant to cite alternative conceptions of god when discussing the possibility of demonstrating whether such entities actually exist?

I happen to think that God is Love too. But, He is also that power that I mentioned earlier. Tonyrey has spent a large part of his life, in these forums, attempting to make it clear to everyone that non-dimensional, purposeless, non-directed exigencies cannot do the things that you, and others, like to accuse them of doing. The chances of a life making/sustaining universe happening by itself are so many orders of magnitude greater than the acceptance of “God,” that I have no choice but to concede to its impossibility.

This is where the difference between naturalism and supernaturalism - bottom-up as opposed to top-down - comes into effect. Naturalists generally don’t take it as a given that the forms of reality as we experience it are dictated by pure, platonic forms that lie in some realm of reality beyond our ability to detect; the alternative hypothesis is that form arises from the interaction of natural matter and forces.

But if we’re talking about a non-dimensional, purposeless, non-directed entity, then a supernatural god seems to fit that description. This being is generally described as being non-physical and outside time, therefore dimensionless; purposeless, because god apparently didn’t need to create anything; and non-directed, since nothing can command or control the activity of such a being. How could a god, such as the God of Classical Theism is conceived, actually do anything, then? How can it create natural entities? How can it interact with the natural world? How can it dictate the thinking and actions of humans, as Yahweh is claimed to have done? You have as good as admitted that your god is irrelevant to our present existence, even if it exists in its own right - or, in its initial creative capacity, is indistinguishable from such particles and/or forces as are theorised to have existed before the birth of the known universe.

And of course the chances of the universe existing may be minute. But it only had to happen once - from a number of possibilities we cannot discern - just as the origination of life only had to happen once, in 13.7 (or so) billion years, in order for us to be here contemplating it. The chances of any individual winning a lottery are minute, but it still happens.