Posted on 12/07/2002 9:46:51 AM PST by beckett
Lapidary, cornelis! Thanks.
This, of course, is the very heart of our disagreements. I'm on the side of newness.
But last night when I opened the air handler, I was confronted with something completely different from my memory, far more difficult.
I think false memories are fairly common. Of course, I see them in other people far more often than in myself.
It is the obligation of anyone hypothesizing a previously unknown phenomenon, to invent the equipment needed to study it.
To the contrary, here's what Physicist said at post 826 on another thread:
For example, it is possible to calculate the fundamental magnetic charge of a magnetic monopole. In reality, no magnetic monopoles have ever been found; indeed, they may not even exist. Nevertheless, the value of the magnetic monopole charge is a scientific statement. It is testable in principle, even though in practice it has not been (and may not be).
Another example would be the Higgs particle and the technirho. If the Higgs does not exist, then the technirho must exist; if the Higgs does exist, there won't be a technirho particle. Searches are being conducted for both particles; rest assured that all of the physicists involved in both searches are "doing science", no matter how it turns out.
Evolution is a scientific theory whether there's evidence for it or not. The same may be said of Lamarckism. As luck would have it, there is overwhelming evidence for the former, and overwhelming evidence against the latter.
I would add this from Riemannian Geometry:
Clarifying ... that there is encompassing, deep design is evident. It is not evident that we have discerned it or that we can fully discern it.
It is a wonderful post! Thank you!!! Here are my favorite points:
If nothing else, the physicists have shown us that math works better as a tool to penetrate reality. It is a language with built-in integrity, and productive...
Well, if nothing else, we have established that materialist science doesn't have the answer and it is in headlong, fervent denial about it. And Yes, "The method is supposed to be our tool, not our master."
More observational irony: A few centuries ago, it was understood that science was the pursuit of understanding of God's design. That pursuit has been stunningly successful. Yet language has been tasked with turning this truth on its head, to deny the existence of God. But that's all it is, sophistry. Design is self-evident and it takes many volumes of treacly language to move us away, intellectually, from this truth. Let me repeat this: The Design Is Self-Evident.
Interesting statement, especially since Physicist proceeds to cite examples of phenomena that are the subject of ongoing investigation. It was, in fact, particle physics I was thinking of when I said that scientists must invent the appartus needed to investigate phenomena. And Darwin, of course, spent decades accumulating evidence before publishing his theory.
The phenomenon of consciousness is rather unique because (so far) there cannot be confirmation of observed facts. I would argue that this problem is temporary and is being whittled away at from two directions: one is the continuing progress in studying the brain; the second is continuing progress in emulating the brain. We are in the infancy of these sciences.
Consider the process of fusion for a moment. I have remarked that this process has been observed for as long as there have been eyes to see, because the sun is plainly visible. Imagine Newton trying to understand the process that keeps the sun hot. He would not have the tools to fully understand the problem or formulate a physical theory for it. Not only did he not have special relativity to explain the energy source, he also lacked thermodynamics to quantify the problem.
This is what I have in mind when I say we should not postulate dragons to fill the voids in our knowledge. Science progresses at its own pace, with the tools available at the moment. One should not place arbitrary limits on the definition of space, time and matter, because these concepts change and expand with learning.
or pretend to void from our knowledge what is there. The first is short-lived and faddish, even entertaining. The second creates terror.
It's amazing, Phaedrus, but to me, the design is so self-evident you have to be blind not to see it. But I guess "willful blindness" may be the point here.
It used to be simply taken for granted in the Christian West that God created the world, that creation was an intelligent design (i.e., orderly or "lawful") that was intelligible to men because God had made man in his image -- i.e., with reason and free will. It was a kind of simple commonplace consensus that nobody felt any need to argue with. You didn't even have to be particularly "religious" to hold this view. We see this assumption everywhere -- in the founding documents of our nation, in Isaac Newton, Einstein, oh the list goes on and on, and you can find additional examples easily enough.
Arguably, this very assumption provided the basis for scientific inquiry: Intelligible universe susceptible to being understood by man because (1) the universe is lawful and orderly and (2) human intelligence was "designed" to be up to the job of unlocking its secrets. These are Western ideas, and they have midwifed the stunning successes of science in the West. Notice that there was no science ever produced out of the complex of Eastern metaphysics. Science in the East is largely a Western cultural import.
But now what do we have? Today, it seems many scientists want to turn this "classical" understanding inside-out. They seem to define the challenge for science in their respective disciplines as "accounting for the universe by any means you can, just so long as it doesn't involve God." Thus they begin with a conclusion that is the refutation of the very principles that made science possible, with all of its stunning and wonderful achievements.
To me, this is just plain nutz. As in certifiable.
Thanks so much for writing, Phaedrus!
One should not place arbitrary limits on the definition of space, time and matter, because these concepts change and expand with learning.
IMHO, space/time is the least understood of all physical laws. Even scientists seldom consider space/time when making their observations. And in common vernacular, how many times does anyone ever properly finish the sentence “the universe is x billion years old” with the correct phrase “from our space/time coordinate?”
Our vision and our minds are geared to a 3 dimensional understanding of events – even though we know, factually, that the 4th dimension exists. We look at our computer monitor as a immobile solid at its location when in reality it is motion over space/time. Here is what the fourth dimension actually looks like, but how few can comprehend it!
Moreover, how few truly understand that space and time are mutually determinable? If you know space, you can find time; if you know time, you can find space. Lorentz Transformation
And it doesn’t stop with 4 dimensions, nor should we presume there could be no dynamics in the higher dimensions! Higher Dimensions and Super Strings. From the first link:
We who wish to explore the possibility that consciousness does not exist in our (arbitrarily selected) three dimensional worldview, are not the ones throwing up walls to science. To the contrary, it is the materialist who doesn’t want to go there. Fortunately for our side, not all scientists are metaphysically materialist.
p.s.: I really loved this statement, Phaedrus.
I remember reading something by Daniel Dennett, (I'm not sure which book, either Darwin's Dangerous Idea, or Consciousness Explained). His term for God was "skyhook," a perjorative in itself. He wrote (paraphrasing) "We must be sure that there is no room for a skyhook in our theory."
Js1138: I found a short statement at this link which does a great job of “summing up” a point I was trying to make at post 413. I apologize for my emotional wording in that post, potential disregard of dimensional considerations is a sore spot with me and I shouldn’t let it be so.
The best evidence that motion is a reciprocal relation between space and time is the everyday way physicists the world over use speed to measure motion. Speed of any motion is given by a multiplicatively inverse relation between space and time and/or between time and space. The physical world is entirely composed of one component, motion, existing in three dimensions, indiscrete units and in two reciprocal forms, space and time.
No, don't think of it that way. A-G -- you're just raising a red flag that we need to heed. Thank you.
I have a lot of catching up to do here. I just received two volumes of Penrose yesterday, but have started neither. Which do you recommend I read first: Emperor or Shadows?
And thus we begin with a conclusion. Why bother to go through the exercise, if that is the case? What purpose would it serve?
Thanks for the telling statement, beckett.
LOL! :^) ;^) :^p
I think you're one fine correspondent, js1138. If it comes down to methods, I say: Don't you change a thing.
I would recommend Emporer first. Thanks for asking!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.