Science and Metaphysics

[G L Wilson]

Is there nothing or something beyond the physical sciences?

Help me to decide.

[Stanislaw]

There is theoretical physics if that's what you mean?

[Panglossian]

Well I would say that all & everything can be understood on a scientific level, but I suspect there is a myriad of stuff the human intellect will never be able to grasp.

Thus there will always be "mystery", and as a consequence, there will always be room for a theory of "God".

[Calidore]

Science is always defining more things that used to be explained supernaturally, but there's always more to find. I personally think everything can be explained by science, but whether we'll ever develop the science to explain it is another matter.

[G L Wilson]

Is not poetry or prose a metaphysics?

[Miss 87]

sure. the thing that beyond physical science is the thing that we have not discovered YET.

[YesNo]

Is there nothing or something beyond the physical sciences?

Help me to decide.
If I recall something Hawkins quoted, in the early 19th century, Laplace could claim that science would eventually understand everything in a deterministic universe without recourse to anything outside it. Everything had a cause which could be understood. But that was the early 19th century.

Then came Darwin's theory of evolution where changes in species, especially in a trending manner, had to be justified. To explain this, chance was introduced which undermined Laplace's determinism.

Then came the discovery of radioactive decay. This is spontaneous decay, that means there is no cause within the universe making it happen.

Then came Heisenberg's uncertainty principle which destroyed physical determinism at least in the region below Plank's constant.

Then came the expanding universe, now seen as space-time filled with energy some of which takes the form of matter. The expanding universe led to the big bang theory. The universe now had a beginning, out of nothing, which means, whatever this universe was created out of, it was not more of this same space-time energy stuff. And what caused this beginning? Chance, again? Since the early 19th century, chance rather than cause comes in as a new kind of God to explain what happens. At least this new God is not personal, which is all I think that matters for these theorists.

So I view your original question in this manner: is the space-time matter-energy universe grounded in another dimension or not?

I think our universe is grounded in another dimension and the destruction of Laplace's early 19th century determinism, by science itself, and the recourse of scientists to invoke the activity of the modern God Chance as an explanation for change is evidence for this grounding.

[Hawkman]

Magic is much easier to understand than that - hence religion. The trouble with science is the more one learns, the more one realises one doesn't know. Ask a scientist. It's amazing how often the answer to a question is, "Well, we don't actually know, but..."

They then devote their lives to designing experiments to to determine the viability of hypothosies which, more often than not, either prove nothing, or disprove the theory. Science is really a belief system, of sorts. So much has to be taken on faith until someone comes up with a satisfactory answer which can be proved. Then someone else has to ask another question!

Religion negates the necessity for this by saying that everything is, more or less, unkowable and in the hands of an infallible diety. So that's all right then. It leaves you with two options really. You can look at the stars and say, "Wow, the stars are beautiful, Thanks God" or you can say, "Look at all those dead suns so far away you can still see them shine" and look for dark matter because the universe doesn't wiegh enough and try to manufacture black holes & wormholes in an enormous hole in the ground in Switzerland.

I'm starting to rethink my attitude to Nihilsim - lol

[G L Wilson]

I've got a black hole, and the sun shines out of it.

[Miss 87]

Is there nothing or something beyond the physical sciences?

Help me to decide.

Our senses are limited quantitatively and qualitatively. The modern sciences discovered that the universe is full of things that we can not hear or see. So our senses are not enough to tell us the whole truth or to deny the existence of of something beyond our senses (metaphysics) .The claim of not existence of it because we can not see, hear, touch, breathe or whatever without any logical proof is ill-founded. There are many things in our daily life that we strongly believe in it without having any direct contact with. For example, I can say that someone drank my juice without seeing him. I can say that somebody arranged my bedroom without seeing him. I am sure that someone is operating this universe but where is he? ( metaphysics) (beyond my finite senses and mind) but the reflections of him is around me.
I challenge anyone who says that our senses and minds are not finite to draw a picture that its elements or (what it includes) are not from what we see everyday.

[G L Wilson]

I would say that we are limited, but can something beyond imagining really be called real? Isn't it nought to nowhere, non-linear? Isn't the somewhere of dreams nowhere? Am I to trust dreams like a fool and follow them into error? For love, I will; and for nothing else.

[Miss 87]

I would say that we are limited, but can something beyond imagining really be called real? Isn't it nought to nowhere, non-linear? Isn't the somewhere of dreams nowhere? Am I to trust dreams like a fool and follow them into error? For love, I will; and for nothing else.

An example friend may clarify what I want to say(The footraces (concrete evidences) tell me that there are beings nearby (not concrete to me till this moment).May I can find them or may not (metaphysics here). The dreams are only abstract ( they are not as metaphysics). There are no concrete evidences lead to them). The whole universe is not traces for someone? I will let you to think.:)

[G L Wilson]

An example friend may clarify what I want to say(The footraces (concrete evidences) tell me that there are beings nearby (not concrete to me till this moment).May I can find them or may not (metaphysics here). The dreams are only abstract ( they are not as metaphysics). There are no concrete evidences lead to them). The whole universe is not traces for someone? I will let you to think.:)

We are talking about illusions here. I see no evidence for this metaphysical someone that you talk about except in madness, you see evidence for this someone except in reason. Therefore, between madness and reason, I would choose reason every time; you can choose what you will, I have no power over you.

[The Atheist]

Is there nothing or something beyond the physical sciences?

Help me to decide.

Wouldn't evidence be a lot more satisfactory than a few personal opinions collected on the internet?

When there's any evidence that there is something outside of the material universe would be the ideal time to start on metaphysics.

Poetry and prose are purely material/physical.

[Jack of Hearts]

In the Prolegomena, Kant says we don't know because of limitations (but, conversely, could know). Presumably he says this in The Critique of Pure Reason as well, given how the two are related.

Going to bet that Kant isn't a big hit with you though, Good Luck Wilson.

You'd probably find it apropo that he be mentioned here, as he is a back-doors Christian, after all.







J

[G L Wilson]

In the Prolegomena, Kant says we don't know because of limitations (but, conversely, could know). Presumably he says this in The Critique of Pure Reason as well, given how the two are related.

Going to bet that Kant isn't a big hit with you though, Good Luck Wilson.

You'd probably find it apropo that he be mentioned here, as he is a back-doors Christian, after all.

J

Doubly troubling or not, I have loved what I have read of him. But this statement of his that we could know something beyond sense baffles me, surely it is a logical impossibility.

[Jack of Hearts]

Ah, Mr. Wilson, there is more than the echoes what escaped Nietzsche's belly! Very nice. Here's a present:


"If in a new science, which is wholly isolated and unique in
its kind, we started with the prejudice that we can judge of
things by means of our previously acquired knowledge, which, is
precisely what has first to be called in question, we should only
fancy we saw everywhere what we had already known. The
expressions, having a similar sound, only that all would appear
utterly metamorphosed, senseless and unintelligible, because we
should have as a foundation out own notions, made by long habit a
second nature, instead of the author's. But the longwindedness of
the work, so far as it depends on the subject, and not the
exposition, its consequent unavoidable dryness and its scholastic
precision are qualities which can only benefit the science,
though they may discredit the book."

- Kant, Prolegomena to Any Future Metaphysics









J

[G L Wilson]

Wouldn't evidence be a lot more satisfactory than a few personal opinions collected on the internet?

When there's any evidence that there is something outside of the material universe would be the ideal time to start on metaphysics.

Poetry and prose are purely material/physical.

If there is a connection to the supernatural, it will be not through logic that it is found. If man is a mystery, what greater mystery is beyond?


Ah, Mr. Wilson, there is more than the echoes what escaped Nietzsche's belly! Very nice. Here's a present:


"If in a new science, which is wholly isolated and unique in
its kind, we started with the prejudice that we can judge of
things by means of our previously acquired knowledge, which, is
precisely what has first to be called in question, we should only
fancy we saw everywhere what we had already known. The
expressions, having a similar sound, only that all would appear
utterly metamorphosed, senseless and unintelligible, because we
should have as a foundation out own notions, made by long habit a
second nature, instead of the author's. But the longwindedness of
the work, so far as it depends on the subject, and not the
exposition, its consequent unavoidable dryness and its scholastic
precision are qualities which can only benefit the science,
though they may discredit the book."

- Kant, Prolegomena to Any Future Metaphysics




J

Amongst the sludge of the mind we might find God in the gutter.

[Miss 87]

We are talking about illusions here. I see no evidence for this metaphysical someone that you talk about except in madness, you see evidence for this someone except in reason. Therefore, between madness and reason, I would choose reason every time; you can choose what you will, I have no power over you.

G L Wilson:
I invite you to visit this website
http://www.kaheel7.com/eng/

[G L Wilson]

G L Wilson:
I invite you to visit this website
http://www.kaheel7.com/eng/

I would say that the Muslims are about as clueless as everyone else when it comes to the supernatural.

[Miss 87]

I would say that the Muslims are about as clueless as everyone else when it comes to the supernatural.

your opinion dear..
but it seems that you do not have even time to read (only judgments).
so now i will turn the role: why do you say that muslims are clueless?
plz be specific to be able to understand:)

[osho]

I think all of us no matter which religion or culture we come from do not know the supernatural. It is an unsettled domain and no matter how much you rack your brains art the end of the day you will be at a point from where you began your journey.

We are totally clueless and no religion can say firmly about it because all religious theories are manmade, invented, imagined.

[G L Wilson]

your opinion dear..
but it seems that you do not have even time to read (only judgments).
so now i will turn the role: why do you say that muslims are clueless?
plz be specific to be able to understand:)

If Muslims are depending on a book for the answers to Life, the Universe and Everything, they must be clueless.

[Miss 87]

If Muslims are depending on a book for the answers to Life, the Universe and Everything, they must be clueless.

No dear.. Muslims are not depending only on Quran. They are many ways to understand life not just quran. the main basic of quran is to guide the humanity not to give scientific facts about life. Quran introduces SOME examples of scientific facts and correlates them with guidance.
QUESTION: if Muslims believe that Quran gives them everything to live, why then they wrote and write books in maths, medicine and whatever. is not it supposed that quran will give them any answer the want about life?
may you not read Quran but i do. there are many many verses say work, work, work. go and see around you. build the earth. think about life? why that friend? why do not quran say: sit and contemplate, Quran will give you everything about life, do not think about life? it is forbidden?
why do i courage my students to think, if i am conviced that i will give them everything?

[The Atheist]

If there is a connection to the supernatural, it will be not through logic that it is found.

Nobody mentioned logic. I was talking about evidence.


If man is a mystery, what greater mystery is beyond?

What part of man is a mystery?

[osho]

[QUOTE=



What part of man is a mystery?[/QUOTE]

The mystery is what you are physically, organically and ethereally. You have the science to dissect man into pieces and bits. You have the microscope to observe the compounds your body is made up of. You have the logic of science to defy everything religion, mysticism, incarnation and all the rest.

However, you, despite all your arguments and pronouncements, wonder at everything you see around you and you have no answers.

Is this not a mystery then?

This is a mystery to Einstein too.

[Miss 87]

Nobody mentioned logic. I was talking about evidence.



What part of man is a mystery?

what is your definition of mystery?

[MarkBastable]

However, you, despite all your arguments and pronouncements, wonder at everything you see around you and you have no answers.



Speak for yourself, bub.

[The Atheist]

The mystery is what you are physically, organically and ethereally.

I'll pass on the "ethereally", as it doesn't have any meaning to me in the sense you've used it, but physically and organically (a tautology, for sure) there isn't any mystery that I'm aware of.


You have the science to dissect man into pieces and bits. You have the microscope to observe the compounds your body is made up of. You have the logic of science to defy everything religion, mysticism, incarnation and all the rest.

I'm not sure whether you've made a typo or spelling mistake here. Did you mean "define" rather than "defy"? Science has no interest or position on religion, mysticism, etc.


However, you, despite all your arguments and pronouncements, wonder at everything you see around you and you have no answers.

Says who? What do I not have answers to?

Sure, there are a few interesting things like dark energy and bosons that require fuller explanation, but to call them "mystery" is nonsense.

I wonder at everything around me in the full knowledge that it was created by chance due to a singularity many billions of years ago. In the right frame of mind, science is a lot more wondrous than religion.

To me, there is far greater wonder that all the universe could happen spontaneously than some entity flicking a switch and doing it by magic. It's taken four billion years for humans to reach this point in evolution. That's not just wondrous, but completely astounding and miraculous - but totally explicable.


This is a mystery to Einstein too.

Yes, he was unable to come up with a Theory of Everything, but he did a lot of the groundwork.


what is your definition of mystery?

#1 (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/mystery)

Poor choice of word to use due to the multiple meanings. I'd prefer "unknown" for things we don't know because we haven't got that far yet. "Mystery" tends to imply something mysterious or unknowable, which is quite different.

[Miss 87]

[ Poor choice of word to use due to the multiple meanings. I'd prefer "unknown" for things we don't know because we haven't got that far yet. "Mystery" tends to imply something mysterious or unknowable, which is quite different.[/QUOTE]

good explanation:)
but why do you say (mysterious "or" {unknowable}) in your definition of mystery? do you contradicate yourself?

[The Atheist]

but why do you say (mysterious "or" {unknowable}) in your definition of mystery? do you contradicate yourself?

I hope not!

:D

What I'm getting at is that I don't like using the word "mystery" because of that "unknowable" bit. I don't think there is anything that is unknowable. Unknown, sure, but we will find answers given time.

[G L Wilson]

I hope not!

:D

What I'm getting at is that I don't like using the word "mystery" because of that "unknowable" bit. I don't think there is anything that is unknowable. Unknown, sure, but we will find answers given time.

Is anyone "knowable"?

[The Atheist]

Is anyone "knowable"?

Every single one, I'd say. Humans, rocks, antelopes, woodlice: all things that exist and can be explained materialistically.

[G L Wilson]

Every single one, I'd say. Humans, rocks, antelopes, woodlice: all things that exist and can be explained materialistically.

Science fiction! You will have to come up with better than that.

[Miss 87]

I hope not!

:D

What I'm getting at is that I don't like using the word "mystery" because of that "unknowable" bit. I don't think there is anything that is unknowable. Unknown, sure, but we will find answers given time.

what is the difference btwn unknown and unknowable?


Every single one, I'd say. Humans, rocks, antelopes, woodlice: all things that exist and can be explained materialistically.

what is your explanation of feeling ,for example,(materialistically)?
is it heart or brain!

[G L Wilson]

what is your explanation of feeling ,for example,(materialistically)?
is it heart or brain!

It's the brain! Please let him explain how he is going to decipher the thought patterns of woodlice.

[Miss 87]

It's the brain! Please let him explain how he is going to decipher the thought patterns of woodlice.

may he will say i do not like the word "pattern" and then will invent a new word somehow!:biggrin5:

[G L Wilson]

may he will say i do not like the word "pattern" and then will invent a new word somehow!:biggrin5:

Too right.

[Miss 87]

Too right.

by the way, do you decide to stop asking or it is only a rest to take a breath?:biggrin5:

[MarkBastable]

Science fiction! You will have to come up with better than that.

That doesn't really constitute a rebuttal of Atheist's point, does it?

[G L Wilson]

That doesn't really constitute a rebuttal of Atheist's point, does it?

Science fiction is not a reality beyond imagining. True, I should have been less generous and just called him a liar; yet moderation in all things is called for on this forum and even that is not enough sometimes.

[The Atheist]

Science fiction! You will have to come up with better than that.

What evidence would you like? There is around four billion years worth of fossil record to start with, so it's not a simple subject - and even worse, there are lots of gaps.

Despite that, I think it's quite reasonable to accept a fully material universe.

Tell you what though, since I don't know which piece of evidence you need, are you able to come up with somthing non-material? If not, there seems little point going further.


what is the difference btwn unknown and unknowable?

Unknown is something we don't know.

Unknowable is something we cannot know.



what is your explanation of feeling ,for example,(materialistically)?
is it heart or brain!

Feelings are all attributable to the brain. Even if you have heart arrhythmia and can "feel" the beating of your heart, it is still necessary for the brain to process the information.

All thought and feeling comes from the brain.


It's the brain! Please let him explain how he is going to decipher the thought patterns of woodlice.

What thought patterns are these?

As far as I'm aware, woodlice are not known or thought to have thought patterns and their rudimentary brains are not considered able to have thought patterns any more than a tree, so the question seems a bit pointless.

You could have a different meaning to "thought patterns" I guess, but unless you can exhibit some evidence that woodlice "think", there's nothing to answer.

[G L Wilson]

I think, otherwise I wiould die.

[Miss 87]

Unknown is something we don't know.

Unknowable is something we cannot know.

so is this disability " cannot" of unknowing temporary or permanent?

Feelings are all attributable to the brain. Even if you have heart arrhythmia and can "feel" the beating of your heart, it is still necessary for the brain to process the information.

All thought and feeling comes from the brain.
so what is the definition of feeling "materialistically"?
i do not ask you from where it comes.

[G L Wilson]

so what is the definition of feeling "materialistically"?
i do not ask you from where it comes.

Certainty is unscientific, it is also foolish.

The problem with you, The Atheist, is that you don't doubt, you don't think.

All things are beyond physics, all things are metaphysical.

[The Atheist]

Unknown is something we don't know.

Unknowable is something we cannot know.

so is this disability " cannot" of unknowing temporary or permanent?

Wrong person to ask, sorry. I don't believe there are any things which are unknowable. In the fullness of time, I expect all questions to have a valid answer.

Won't be next week, though.


Feelings are all attributable to the brain. Even if you have heart arrhythmia and can "feel" the beating of your heart, it is still necessary for the brain to process the information.

All thought and feeling comes from the brain.
so what is the definition of feeling "materialistically"?
i do not ask you from where it comes.

You mean the combination of chemical reactions and electrical impulses that operate the brain? I'm not sure what you want to know, but feelings are just another brain function.


Certainty is unscientific, it is also foolish.

Nonsense. 2+2 will always equal 4.

There are times for doubt and uncertainty and there are times for concrete evidence.


The problem with you, The Atheist, is that you don't doubt, you don't think.

Wrong and wronger. What you see is the production of 40 years of doubt and questions which have been answered to my satisfaction.

If evidence comes to light to force a re-think, I am entirely open to it.

If you try reading what I type rather than what you think I typed, you wouldn't make such fallacious comments to start with.


All things are beyond physics, all things are metaphysical.

I'm assuming you type this stuff for fun as part of some trolling research?

I ask, because it's a pretty naive paradox.

Have you ever considered posting evidence or fact rather than sound-bites?

[MarkBastable]

The Net Etiquette distributed at Cambridge University includes the following guidance about conversations in cyberspace...


Never say anything on the Net that you wouldn't say if the other person were in the same room and bigger than you.


I think you should take that advice while you're here, GL, though I rather hope you ignore it in the real world.