Science Deals with the Intangible

206 posts / 0 new

Sun, 2012-11-18 10:16

6079_Smith_W

Well I could have asked for him to define his terms, because to say that metaphysics is becoming science is not clear at all. Are we talking about things which can be proven, or are we talking about accepting magic as real?

An illustration seemed more in order, don't you think?

And the fact is practical science is and always has been mixed with metaphysics and matters of faith to a greater or lesser degree (even if it is lesser right now). I don't expect there's any great epiphany waitihg to happen.

Sun, 2012-11-18 11:56

#203

Fidel

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Well I could have asked for him to define his terms, because to say that metaphysics is becoming science is not clear at all. Are we talking about things which can be proven, or are we talking about accepting magic as real?

An illustration seemed more in order, don't you think?

I think it depends on which prominent physicists we are referring to as experts on the matter. If we are discussing more conservative physicists and their "beliefs" in a multiverse or many worlds theory, then David Deutsch and Bryce DeWitt favour the real interpretation (i.e. 10 dimensional reality). Deutsch believes that the multiverse is real and conscious, so to speak. He believes that quantum computers will be a valid test for this theory. Where else in the universe would a quantum bit of information come from if not a parallel universe? Deutsch's theory is a mix of Popperian-Darwinian explanations of reality, and that somewhere at an extreme end of of the universe are "sentient beings" maintaining a "universal quantum computer" processing all information comprising any particular universe. But don't quote me.

At the extremes are Stephen Hawking and Steven Weinberg who both favour the unreal interpretation of Hugh Everett's multiverse theory (i.e. all worlds exist simultaneously).

And then there is Brian Greene. Greene's theories are pretty far out there. According to Greene, this world is a 3-d hologram of data projected from a 2-dimensional universe. Part of his theory is supported, he says, by recent Hubble telescope data showing evidence of Planck length particles reflected back to us from the farthest points of the universe ever detected.

In my Father's house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. Jn. 14:2

Sun, 2012-11-18 14:38

#204

6079_Smith_W

My point is, though, that if these things can be demonstrated to exist, then they will simply be part of science. There is no dichotomy there at all, except, as I said way back, for people with this fuzzy notion of mystery that for some reason they need to preserve.

Sun, 2012-11-18 17:54

#205

Fidel

Just so long as you aren't referring to the likes of Deutsch, Greene, and Hawking as the unicorn brigade. "wink"

Mon, 2012-11-19 23:22

#206

Fidel

6079_Smith_W wrote:

My point is, though, that if these things can be demonstrated to exist, then they will simply be part of science. There is no dichotomy there at all, except, as I said way back, for people with this fuzzy notion of mystery that for some reason they need to preserve.

I think there are those who want to tell us that metaphysics doesn't explain the material world. Or they want to inform us that philosophy, religion, sociology can not explain the good stuff or things which matter most. Chris Hitchens said that religion has lost its justifications. Atheists will tell us that if it can't measure things in the real world, then it's of no use to truth seekers. In other words, the natural sciences rule.

But religionists and philosophers don't run around informing people that science can't explain consciousness, or that science can't really explain why a table is a table, an apple an apple etc. Science, or at least those who claim to speak for science, seem to have built science into a concrete bunker without any windows or doors. The concrete bunker these apparent scientists have inserted themselves into requires no natural daylight or inputs from the rest of society. I think these kinds of people might be said to be worshippers of scientism. And there is no such bunker, really. Science doesn't exist in a vacuum nor even the concrete bunker they've constructed around it in hopes of fending off the wolf, or what they perceive to be the enemy etc.

And so it goes. There will always be people expressing their disappointment that philosophy doesn't explain evolution, or that a physicist, amazingly enough, is probably the wrong person to demand answers to concerning class conflict or labour disputes. And they will say these things with the utmost sincerity. They are positivists, scientific materialists, determinists etc. Nothing else matters for them.

Science Deals with the Intangible

Pages