F
Faith1960
Guest
What does causality mean, who or what caused the universe to come into being?
- Status
E
ericc
Guest
I read somewhere that there is no shred of evidence that multiverse exist. Has things changed since then? You can not do science without facts and data and something that you can measure right?
Of course you can do maths with imaginary numbers though.
E
ericc
Guest
B
Bahman
Guest
We might be cognitively closed to explain such entities from scientific point of view. Do you have any proof for this? Could you please explain what are these entities either? They are simply subjective realities that appear to intellect as they are each represent a state of being hence they have no meaning.
B
Bahman
Guest
The problem with M-theory is that it does no predict anything but offer infinite possibilities for universe existence, ours is one of them. Needless to say that scientists have objection to such a theory complaining what you say. But a physical theory which exactly predict the current state of being, our universe, is not more than a fit hence it cannot explain the existence in general because its duty is to just describe the current state of matter.
By the way, does God know M-theory?
S
seagal
Guest
I’m sure he does, and he’s either thinking “Bravo, you got it right!” or laughing up his sleeve at the silly quantum physicists who thought it up .
B
Bahman
Guest
Yeah, it is an ironic question, since he doesn’t need to do anything, namely creating, if he knows it.I’m sure he does, and he’s either thinking “Bravo, you got it right!” or laughing up his sleeve at the silly quantum physicists who thought it up .
S
seagal
Guest
There aren’t many scientists who are in the same league as Hawking. That doesn’t mean they can’t refute his ideas about creation with authority and intelligence. The fact that he tries to ring the death knell for Philosophy shows he’s going way out of his field. John Lennox may not be on a par with him in physics but he is very intelligent in his own right and has a knack for explaining heady ideas. I found his video refuting Hawking’s book very helpful and boils down to this (to quote Lennox): “Nonsense remains nonsense even when it’s taught by world famous scientists”. And this: “Not all statements by scientists are statements of science…Immense prestige and authority do not compensate for faulty logic.”
C
Charlemagne_III
Guest
No scientist, speaking as a scientist, can tell you, with facts to back it up, “who or what” caused the universe to come into being.
There are theories galore without supportive facts, especially on the atheist side of the scientific community, because one thing the atheists will not allow is that the “who or what” could be God.
Supporting facts for the theist interpretation of “who or what” caused the universe to exist are more substantial.
Carl Sagan in Cosmos, 1980 A.D.
“Ten or twenty billion years ago, something happened – the Big Bang, the event that began our universe…. In that titanic cosmic explosion, the universe began an expansion which has never ceased…. As space stretched, the matter and energy in the universe expanded with it and rapidly cooled. The radiation of the cosmic fireball, which, then as now, filled the universe, moved through the spectrum – from gamma rays to X-rays to ultraviolet light; through the rainbow colors of the visible spectrum; into the infrared and radio regions. The remnants of that fireball, the cosmic background radiation, emanating from all parts of the sky can be detected by radio telescopes today. In the early universe, space was brilliantly illuminated.”
Genesis, 1200 B.C. : “In the beginning God said: ‘Let there be light.’”
As astronomer Robert Jastrow pointed out in God and the Astronomers.“For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.”
T
tonyrey
Guest
Science does not explain itself. It is based on metascientific principles such as the power of reason and the intelligibility of the universe.
If truth, goodness, freedom, justice, beauty and love are all subjective then why isn’t science itself subjective because it is the pursuit of the truth about physical reality?
All knowledge is subjective and originates in mental activity - not material objects!
S
seagal
Guest
I think rather than science being subjective, the conclusions scientists come to from their research are subject to their own expectations and/or biases (whether or not they admit to having any). Science can give us objective facts, we interpret them subjectively.
B
Bahman
Guest
No. It is based on four facts, 1)The objective realty is explicable by a set of axioms and constraint, the later being laws of nature, 2) It is universal, meaning that it is independent of intellect, 3) It is precise, 4) Acquire the knowledge of composite from what is simple, namely axioms, 5) It can predict the state of subject matter
I invite you to listen to the following talk. He make an argument that consciousness is a subject of science study.
No. All knowledge is created as a result of mental activity.
U
utunumsint
Guest
Searle is arguing that consciousness is ontologically objective, and the things that we subjectively experience, although they are ontologically subjective, are still based on the ontological fact of consciousness.
Epistemologically, both the ontologically subjective and objective reality of consciousness ought to be considered object, rather than subjective in the sense of simply someone’s opinion.
By saying this, he is attacking reductionist theories that try to explain away consciousness as unreal. A byproduct of material processes. I think his objection is right, that consciousness cannot be eliminated to deterministic material processes, but somehow he then claims it is obvious the they are completely a result of biological processes. He addresses Cartesian dualism to some extent, but never mentions Aristotelian hylomorphism.
God bless,
Ut
C
Charlemagne_III
Guest
Consciousness ought to be a subject of scientific discovery or else we could not be anaesthetized for surgery, our I.Q. could not be measured, etc. etc.
But I have never heard anyone say that, empirically speaking, you could lay out the Pythagorean Theorem on a surgical table and carve it up.
F
Faith1960
Guest
Thanks, but I already read that one.
U
utunumsint
Guest
Right. The Pythagorean Theorem, on an Aristotelian analysis, is based on our sensing an objective material triangle, representing it in the brain as a precept (what Searle would call the ontologically subjected aspect of consciousness), but them abstracting out everything material from the triangle except for number and geometric shape. The mind then uses that abstraction to rationally formulate the Pythagorean Theorem that given three sides of a right triangle, the square of the hypotenuse is equal to the sum of the squares of the other two sides.But I have never heard anyone say that, empirically speaking, you could lay out the Pythagorean Theorem on a surgical table and carve it up.
That theorem is an objective truth about reality, but is it material? Is the theorem somehow materially present in that originally experienced triangular shape? If not, as Searle would agree, then what is it?
God bless,
Ut
B
Bahman
Guest
Lets agree what science and philosophy are first.
Science duty is to acquire knowledge of what is composed from what is simple.
Philosophy duty is to acquire knowledge of what is simple from what is composed.
One need to strive on both methods with the boundary between where metaphysics resides.
Whether the science or philosophy can alone question the subject matter well and find the proper answer is subject of discussion.
C
Charlemagne_III
Guest
I don’t get this, nor do I like it.
The business of philosophy is to discover wisdom in our lives.
The business of science is knowledge of how the world works.
I’ve never heard of scientists proclaiming their wisdom.
To hear most scientists speak, they put knowledge on a pedestal high above wisdom.
B
Bahman
Guest
Philosophy=Wisdom
Science=Logical thinking
A
adawgj
Guest
It might be a while
But here is the email addresses of all the staff from the Vatican Observatory
vaticanobservatory.org/about-us/personnel-and-research
- Status