The Great Paradox

[Avatar]

Knowledge actually comes from conjecture, which is then tested against observation and error-correcting mechanisms. Observing something isn't a prerequisite to knowing it.

Hmmm, I'd think knowledge came from testing conjecture. You can form as many opinions based on incomplete knowledge, but only by testing whether they are true can it become knowledge.

--A

[peter]

I've hopped a load of posts here just to make an observation on Wayfriend and Fists prior posts where the suggestion is made that the value of science as a predictive tool and for spawning technology is evidence of it's being on the correct path toward providing us with truth in respect of our origins. At the risk of straying into instrumentalism can I just cite (was it) Ptolemy's system of cycles and epicycles which in its incomprehensible complexity was also capable of 'explaining the phenomena' - but which bore no relationship with the truth at all.

[Fist and Faith]

I'm not familiar with that, peter, but it sounds like what Greene says about string theory. Or at least it could be the same thing, if string theory turns out to be wrong.

[Zarathustra]

Peter's example is perfect. The Ptolemaic system of epicycles was able to match up with the observations just fine. But it was a horrible explanation, too ad hoc. Explanation is more than lining up with observations.

When Einstein completed his theory of general relativity, none of the observations had been made which would later confirm it, but he knew. He had knowledge, because he realized how well it explained the universe and solved problems of previous theory.

[Fist and Faith]

I think you're stretching the definition of "knowledge". Heh. At least as far as what we would agree to call knowledge if someone said "I figured it out!" This article by Brian Green is a good, short (the 3rd page is only his name and the date, Jan 15) talk about this very idea.

[peter]

Excellent article Fist, that serves in one fell stroke to counter every post I have made in this thread to date! Seriously, put like that it is hard to refute the diligence and rigorousness that scientists put into "not deceiving ourselves" (Feynman IIRC). That string theory should, at the sub-atomic demand all of the same solutions as demanded at the cosmological level - ie that of infinite universes - is a powerful indicator of its validity, and coupled with its explanatory power in other areas (eg the Hawking Dilema) it does seem that at last the pieces may be falling into place. I look forward to hearing about what results are obtained when the upgraded LHC begins to operate in due course.

Many thanks for the link .

[Wosbald]

+JMJ+

Excellent article Fist, that serves in one fell stroke to counter every post I have made in this thread to date! Seriously, put like that it is hard to refute the diligence and rigorousness that scientists put into "not deceiving ourselves" (Feynman IIRC). That string theory should, at the sub-atomic demand all of the same solutions as demanded at the cosmological level - ie that of infinite universes - is a powerful indicator of its validity, and coupled with its explanatory power in other areas (eg the Hawking Dilema) it does seem that at last the pieces may be falling into place. I look forward to hearing about what results are obtained when the upgraded LHC begins to operate in due course.

Many thanks for the link .

It's a good article, though only inasmuch as it's understood as prescinding from the primary question and beginning at the secondary. IOW, Science presupposes the Observer as given and, then, proceeds from there. As mentioned earlier, Science, by definition, can never explain the Observer.

For any scientific explanation to be a Theory of Everything would have to explain away the Observer, explain-away its own origin. It would have to take the Observer as an Object of observation. One would have to observe the Observer (i.e. objectify it).

But doing so would simply beg the question of just who was the above-mentioned "one" observing the Observer, viz., the question of the Observer observing the Observer.

And explaining the Observer observing the Observer would, again, imply another Observer.

And so on. A problem of Infinite Regress.

[wayfriend]

Wos, you point out (I think) in a specific way what SerScot points out in a general way when he mentions the Incompleteness Theorem. Which I generalize even further, by saying that there are things that cannot be approached with science, and that this is a rational (that is, a reasoned) opinion.

Even if next year someone explains the origin of the universe in unassailable detail, this doesn't prove that my reasoned opinion is wrong. It only means we have revised our list of which things science can explain and which things it cannot. There will still be things on both sides of the list.

What we don't want to do is make of science a religion. And that's what we do when we proclaim that there is no problem science cannot solve - we become scientific zealots. And the first thing zealots do is proclaim that anyone who thinks other than they do are wrong, and inferior. (They have the wrong "attitude", and "lack imagination".)

And that, Fist, is one thing I was trying to say.

What I wasn't trying to say was anything defending empiricism. Somehow my quote about how empiricism fails got criticized for defending empiricism.

I will mention Crooke's light mill here. Crooke had a conjecture that you could detect light particles transferring their momentum to matter under the right circumstances. He tested this, and got a positive result, and thought he had proven his idea.

But he was completely wrong. Because his test wasn't a valid test. In this case, he failed to rule out other causes for what he observed, but just assumed a positive result was proof. Good science requires, among other things, running many tests, varying in ways that isolate the factors involved. In other words, testing is not enough - you need scientifically valid tests.

Which is why we cannot know what happened at the origin of the universe (according to the article I quoted, anyway). We cannot repeat the big bang several times, under different conditions, to isolate factors. ("We cannot build another universe.") We have conjectures, but we cannot test them in any valid way. Observing that a conjecture predicts the results we can observe is useful, but we cannot make the same mistake as Crooke.

We might find our conjectures can be tested in other places than the big bang. Several people have point this out in this thread, but that has been admitted from the beginning. ("their power of prediction to later times").

And this only deals with what we can know after the initial Planck time. Before then, we have conjecture that there are other problems to deal with, like the fact that the laws of physics haven't materialized yet.

Any theory that presumes there are "higher laws" that existed a priori before natural laws existed is, by definition, a supernatural explanation. And only such supernatural explanations can be offered as a conjecture for the origin of the universe, again by definition. And any supernatural explanation is as good as any other.

Which is the other thing I was trying to say, Fist. Judging one person's supernatural explanation as better than someone else's is not a scientific enterprise, only an exercise in personal taste.

And all of which was how I addressed peter's original question about the Great Paradox. There is, and always will be, a space for religious belief in spite of science, because science doesn't answer everything. It purports to, but believing that is as much of a religion as any other you could name. God is never superfluous to one's experience of the universe.

[wayfriend]

Regarding peter's second question, lest it be forgotton:

but before I go I have a genuine question to ask of the scientists (and if they can succeed in their quest to finally eliminate the need for a Creator I have no argument except to pose the further logical question that 'if something can be explained without something else being so, is that the same as saying that the something else isn't so). I have no understanding of mathematics, and I'm told that trying to understand the picture physics creates of the Creation without this is like trying to understand Bach from a position of congenital deafness.

Ockham's razor is, "All other things being equal, the simplest solution tends to be the best one." People make a mistake when they don't emphasize the "tends to", and they really go wrong when they forget about the "all other things being equal".

The simplest solution is not always the correct solution. Anyone who says so is wrong. However, if you are presented with several equally likely solutions, the simplest one is the way to bet, sure. But this is nothing more than a scientific "hit on 16, hold on 17". It may lead to the correct solution, but nothing says it must.

Using Ockham's razor to "prove" God doesn't exist, on the basis that the universe can be explained without him, is a logical fallacy, at least so far as the notion has been presented to me. For one, scientific explanations for the creation of the universe inject quite a few complexities in their own right, and are not "simpler" than intelligent creation by any means. But it's certainly true that the different theories, spiritual or scientific, are not "equal" either. How could they be?

I'm not asserting intelligent creation, I am just saying that such proofs that god doesn't exist fail in my estimation.

[peter]

I'm going to lay my cards on the table here and say I believe in God because I just find I can't not do so. I hear all of the arguments against, and they all make absolute sense, and still in my heart of hearts He remains there. This must, I guess be what faith is. It's not what as Fist says " does it for me" - I just can't seem (today at least) to do otherwise.

[Fist and Faith]

Like I said before, peter. Heh

[Zarathustra]

Any theory that presumes there are "higher laws" that existed a priori before natural laws existed is, by definition, a supernatural explanation. And only such supernatural explanations can be offered as a conjecture for the origin of the universe, again by definition. And any supernatural explanation is as good as any other.

Is anyone talking about a priori higher laws? Even if they are, I think you have a different definition for 'supernatural' than others here, which means it isn't really 'by definition,' it's just your own personal characterization. If there is a plethora universes spawning, collapsing, or expanding forever, all of these universes together would certainly be larger than our universe, but that doesn't mean they'd necessarily be 'higher.' I probably shouldn't have used that word. I didn't mean to imply an ontological hierarchy, only a simple nesting. A multiverse that gave birth to our universe is no more supernatural than a parent who gives birth to a child, or to additional cells in its own body.

And all of which was how I addressed peter's original question about the Great Paradox. There is, and always will be, a space for religious belief in spite of science, because science doesn't answer everything. It purports to, but believing that is as much of a religion as any other you could name. God is never superfluous to one's experience of the universe.

Even if science did answer everything, there would always be room for religion, in the minds of those predisposed to believe it. The absence of science answering something doesn't 'leave room' for religion. There is no logical leap from the absence of a scientific answer to a religious one. That's just a personal choice, as Peter admits. Reason doesn't lead you there--it can't--only emotion does.

Nor does science purport to answer everything. It's a methodological choice to view problems in general as soluble. This is optimism, not faith, and while optimism is an attitude, it's not a decision based on emotion. It's the extension of confidence in current solutions to the possibility of future ones, based on the wildly successful history of science. It's no more religious or faithful than believing the sun will rise tomorrow.

[peter]

How much will our ability to get to grips with our situation be limited by the scope of the 'wet-ware' we posess. A rhesus monkey would not have the capability of understanding quantum physics no matter how much he tried. There may be extra-terrestrials out there whose brains can cognitize[?] concepts as far above our capability as our ability is above that rhesus monkeys. To get beyond this barrier we either have a shed-load more evolving to do [and who can say it would even go in the right direction ie that of increasing intelligence if say that was not significant in increasing survival chances] - or we have to self-enhance our cognitive capacity.

[Interesting little thing I read this week sort of pertinant to the latter is a reported study on the effects of LSD on brain function. A researcher has found that LSD causes a decrease in the segregation of neural network activity when administered to test subjects. In the 'tripping' subject the activity of the networks becomes much more 'fluid' over the whole brain as opposed to being regionally confined in the controll group. Small advance perhaps, but just possibly a step forward in our understanding of how brain activity could be enhanced.]

[Zarathustra]

Peter, our brains don't need to evolve, since our memes already do. Over generations, we build up explanations that no single human could have invented on his own. We are developing a global brain, now aided by computers. Our reach is truly infinite.

[Zarathustra]

I'd like to jump back to a previous point, so that I'm not misunderstood.

And the first thing zealots do is proclaim that anyone who thinks other than they do are wrong, and inferior. (They have the wrong "attitude", and "lack imagination".)

I have not said that anyone here is inferior, much less anyone who thinks other than I do. Saying that a position suffers from a failure of imagination means only that it fails to consider alternatives, in this case because one has flatly denied that those alternatives even exist, as was done here:

And supernatural causes are the only thing left to consider.

I can imagine lots more alternatives, as I've listed in this thread. Saying that one has ignored or failed to imagine them isn't the same as saying that person is inferior. It's not a personal attack, it's just criticism of a position. I wish we could treat it that way, instead of inventing a personal attack out of thin air.

[SerScot]

Aren't we falling into the Wittgensteinian trap of arguing about the definition of "Knowledge"?

In my opinion something must be imagined before it can be described scientifically. Therefore, a predicate for knowledge it the ability to concieve (imagine) the knowledge's existence.

An imagined breakthrough may not be "knowledge" but it is certainly a necessary aspect of that "knowledge's" existence.

[Avatar]

Imagined? Or perceived? (Or either?)

--A

[peter]

And that which can not be imagined can never be known - a limitation imposed by the inherent limitations of the imagining equipment. A similar thing occors in language where the complexity of the ideas that may be formed is limited by the complexity of the lexicon available for their expression ......above this level they become ineffable?

[Avatar]

If you can perceive something, you don't need to imagine it.

That said, we've found things that can't be perceived, so I guess they must have been imagined.

--A

[SerScot]

Avatar,

If you can perceive something, you don't need to imagine it.

That said, we've found things that can't be perceived, so I guess they must have been imagined.

--A

But you have no hope of understanding what you perceive without imagination.