The Hierarchy of Scientific Knowledge

[Divine Insight]

[center][/center]

I've created the image above to help everyone understand the hierarchical structure of scientific knowledge.

The sciences of Biology and Genetics reside at the top level of scientific knowledge. An understanding of the principles of biology rests upon the knowledge and understanding of Chemistry since all of biology operates on principles of chemical reactions, and complex macro molecules.

Beneath the science of Biology we have Chemistry. Chemistry is the science of how atoms themselves behave and form bonds between themselves to form the various types of molecules that ultimately give rise to biology as well as other inorganic macro materials.

Chemistry then rests upon physics. Physics is the study of the fundamental laws, forces, and particles which ultimately make up the atoms. At one time in history atoms were believed to be the smallest possible constituents of nature, but in modern physics this has been shown to be false. The atoms themselves are made up of smaller constituents often referred as 'particles'. However it is now understood in physics that these particles can also be describe mathematically as waves. In fact, the current scientific interpretation is they are actually just waves of probabilities, or waves of potentiality that do not become manifest until they are observed in an act of observation.

Physics is then held up by what is often called "The Queen of the Sciences" which is mathematics. Mathematics is pure abstract thought that has no tangible basis. In fact, the very concept of number itself is defined within mathematics as being a property of an empty set. An empty set is a collection of things which does not contain a single thing. So mathematics disappears altogether at the level of number and becomes only abstract thought.

What holds up mathematics?

Well according to many mathematicians, philosophers, and scientists, mathematics resides in the Mind of God.

[center]

"If we do discover a theory of everything...
it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason
for then we would truly know the mind of God."

- Stephen Hawking





[/center]

[SailingCyclops]

But a recognition of well-organized information or knowledge as a fundamental truth of reality is required.

P.S.

Much of our universe is not well-organized at all, but rather random and not predictable with any certainty.

[Divine Insight]

We will have to agree to disagree here. Mathematics is the tool, the language we humans use to describe the laws of nature.

That's cool with me.

I'm not claiming that any final conclusions need to be drawn. I'm just pointing out that there are many concepts within science that are still open questions. I'm also pointing out that physics depends heavily on mathematics, even more so today when experimental verification of hypotheses and theories is becoming more difficult to obtain. And that mathematics itself is a product of pure thought. Most mathematicians aren't concerned with even looking to the physical universe to check if their mathematical theorems are true. They can check them via pure thought. And as it turns out, the universe must then at least be restricted by these mathematical 'truths'. Assuming they are indeed truths and no mistakes have been made in the process of logical deductions.

You had suggested that I was anthropomorphizing mathematics, but I'm actually doing just the opposite. I'm recognizing that mathematics must necessarily transcend the human mind. For example Pi was a constant quantitative relationship for billions upon billions of years long before human minds ever came to be.

So it seems to me that anyone who attempts to anthropomorphize mathematics has some insurmountable problems to address.

It also appears to me that you are attempting to do just that.

You say:

If humans and mathematics did not exist, those same laws would operate as they do today irrespective of "knowledge".

But mathematics doesn't truly belong to humans, that's the whole point. If humans did not exist, Pi would still exist as a quantitative relationship of the universe, as would many other constant quantitative relationships such a "e", Phi, etc.

Those quantitative relationships did not arise with the human mind. Yet many the can be deduced via pure "logic" or "reason". Thus the universe itself must necessarily be "logical" or "reasonable". And therefore it make sense to conclude that there is logic and reason behind it.

But a recognition of well-organized information or knowledge as a fundamental truth of reality is required.

P.S.

Much of our universe is not well-organized at all, but rather random and not predictable with any certainty.

Could you please be more specific?

It's my understanding that everywhere we look the in the universe the laws of physics appear to be precisely the same. And this includes looking "back in time".

So I'm afraid I don't know what you are referring to specifically.

Unless you are referring to Quantum Mechanics, but if that's the case then I disagree that things are random and not predicable with any certainty. A single precise outcome may not be predictable with 100% certainty, but the probability distributions of outcomes of quantum behavior is very predictable via very precise probability distributions that are themselves 100% predictable. That is to say that the probability distributes are 100% predictable and extremely accurate according to experimental verification. Never has a prediction of Quantum Mechanics been found to be in error yet. So in that sense there is nothing random about it.

Thanks.

[SailingCyclops]

I'm also pointing out that physics depends heavily on mathematics, even more so today when experimental verification of hypotheses and theories is becoming more difficult to obtain. And that mathematics itself is a product of pure thought.

Yes, of pure human thought as is logic and the scientific method, all are human inventions. I do not disagree.

Most mathematicians aren't concerned with even looking to the physical universe to check if their mathematical theorems are true.

I agree, with the exception of theoretical physicists.

And as it turns out, the universe must then at least be restricted by these mathematical 'truths'. Assuming they are indeed truths and no mistakes have been made in the process of logical deductions.

Here is where we disagree. The universe is reality not mathematics. The universe is never restricted by any man-made tool, thought process, or theorem, no matter how well it has been proofed.

You had suggested that I was anthropomorphizing mathematics, but I'm actually doing just the opposite. I'm recognizing that mathematics must necessarily transcend the human mind.

I made that statement in response to your implying a "mind" and a "consciousness", which are attributes of biological entities and not of any mathematics. When you attribute mind and consciousness to the laws of physics, or to mathematics, or to the universe you are anthropomorphizing; IE giving them human qualities.

You say:

If humans and mathematics did not exist, those same laws would operate as they do today irrespective of "knowledge".

But mathematics doesn't truly belong to humans, that's the whole point. If humans did not exist, Pi would still exist as a quantitative relationship of the universe, as would many other constant quantitative relationships such a "e", Phi, etc.

Isn't that what I said? Irrespective of humans, irrespective of human tools, physical relationships would still exist. I do not disagree with that. Where we differ is when you say "mathematics doesn't truly belong to humans". Of course it does (SEE ** Below). It is as much a human invention as English and French. You may claim mathematics was "discovered", but I see it as the human invention used to describe the laws of the universe. Mathematics doesn't stand alone any more than logic stands alone. Unless it is applied to the real world it is rather meaningless. 2 + 2 = 4 has no intrinsic meaning, 2 apples + 3 apples = 5 apples has meaning. Bear in mind I am biased, I am a retired engineer

Those quantitative relationships did not arise with the human mind.

Agreed, but they were explained by human invented tools.

Yet many the can be deduced via pure "logic" or "reason".

Yes, but that accurate deduction itself is the very proof that the logic we have invented is valid. That's where we seem to differ.

Thus the universe itself must necessarily be "logical" or "reasonable". And therefore it make sense to conclude that there is logic and reason behind it.

Disagree here. I would say the universe is accurately described by our logic and by our mathematics, and only in that sense is it reasonable and logical. It appears "logical" and "reasonable" to us only because the tools we have invented to describe it are accurate, and because we have defined that accuracy as reasonable and logical.

Much of our universe is not well-organized at all, but rather random and not predictable with any certainty.

Could you please be more specific?

I am referring to the random distribution of matter in the cosmos, the randomness of subatomic energy and matter distribution.

It's my understanding that everywhere we look the in the universe the laws of physics appear to be precisely the same. And this includes looking "back in time".

That is not always the case. The laws of physics we know break down and morph into other laws as yet unknown in black holes; Looking back in time, to microseconds after the big bang, the laws of physics were not the same either.

(**)
I would like to offer an example to sum up a point I have been trying to make. Let's look at the problem of designing a sonar system. We must use mathematics to calculate the speed of sound through water of particular composition, density, and pressure. We must use mathematics to calculate the reflective and absorption properties of our targets, we must use mathematics to calculate the doppler shift in order to determine relative speed...... etc etc etc.... we design a mathematical model which allows us to "see" objects. We do this because we are crippled humans. If we were dolphins, we would simply see the objects.We would have no need of mathematics, our description would consist of pure understanding and vision of our water universe.

[Divine Insight]

But mathematics doesn't truly belong to humans, that's the whole point. If humans did not exist, Pi would still exist as a quantitative relationship of the universe, as would many other constant quantitative relationships such a "e", Phi, etc.

Isn't that what I said? Irrespective of humans, irrespective of human tools, physical relationships would still exist. I do not disagree with that. Where we differ is when you say "mathematics doesn't truly belong to humans". Of course it does (SEE ** Below). It is as much a human invention as English and French. You may claim mathematics was "discovered", but I see it as the human invention used to describe the laws of the universe. Mathematics doesn't stand alone any more than logic stands alone. Unless it is applied to the real world it is rather meaningless. 2 + 2 = 4 has no intrinsic meaning, 2 apples + 3 apples = 5 apples has meaning. Bear in mind I am biased, I am a retired engineer

I'm actually in agreement with you 100% on this observation. But that's a whole other story. We're bucking the system here renouncing Pure Mathematics.

Pure Mathematics is the status quo, so this is what many scientists and mathematicians are going by.

They also have some arguments to offer from their side of things. I personally have huge problems with Pure Mathematics, and I'm confident that if aliens ever come here from some other planet, they'll set us straight on that point. In fact, humans will eventually get it right I'm sure.

But right now Pure Mathematics reigns supreme. So that's what we stuck with in modern day science. People who use pure mathematics in their modern day theories aren't being careful to formally define every little apple and orange that they claim to be quantifying. They use number in a totally abstract way without worrying about what they actually mean physically.

In fact, look at QM. What do we see? Waves of probability. Wave of potentiality. These are far from apples and oranges being quantified in neat concrete cardinal ways.

Yet they seem to work quite well, so the mathematical puritans have some support for their Pure Mathematical Fairy Dust.

[SailingCyclops]

I'm actually in agreement with you 100% on this observation. But that's a whole other story. We're bucking the system here renouncing Pure Mathematics.

I am unaware of what system we are renouncing. My career spanned medical research as a research faculty member, I worked in the defense industry, and developing corporate communications systems. It has always been applied research not theoretical. Even when I was research faculty I never dealt with theoretical mathematicians. So, I really do not understand what you are saying in that respect. I have no experience with that.

I'mYet they seem to work quite well, so the mathematical puritans have some support for their Pure Mathematical Fairy Dust.

Yes, and I would categorize your statements about "the mind of god", and the universe being somehow conscious, as the same sort of "Fairy Dust". "Fairy Dust" is so reminiscent of religion. Would you now agree?

[Divine Insight]

I'm actually in agreement with you 100% on this observation. But that's a whole other story. We're bucking the system here renouncing Pure Mathematics.

I am unaware of what system we are renouncing. My career spanned medical research as a research faculty member, I worked in the defense industry, and developing corporate communications systems. It has always been applied research not theoretical. Even when I was research faculty I never dealt with theoretical mathematicians. So, I really do not understand what you are saying in that respect. I have no experience with that.

Well, surely you've taken courses in mathematics then. You are aware of set theory, the empty set, and so forth? The concept of number is not defined on apples and oranges or anything even remotely that tangible. Current mathematical formalism is truly not a science even thought it has often been called "The Queen of the Sciences". In truth it's not ultimately restricted to observations made of the real world. That not how mathematical theorems are tested.

I'mYet they seem to work quite well, so the mathematical puritans have some support for their Pure Mathematical Fairy Dust.

Yes, and I would categorize your statements about "the mind of god", and the universe being somehow conscious, as the same sort of "Fairy Dust". "Fairy Dust" is so reminiscent of religion. Would you now agree?

No.

First off, I never said that the universe is conscious but rather I simply raised the question of whether it might be. We also need to be careful what we are calling "The Universe" here. I'm including the quantum world as being part of the universe. I'm not sure if you include that in your universe or not.

I'm recognizing that information needs to exist in quantum fields in order for quantum physics to work. And this is a presumption that I'm pretty sure all quantum physicists accept. The probability distributions of quantum mechanics could hardly be dependable, predictive, and consistent if there wasn't information behind them. As they say, we don't see elephants popping in and out of existence from quantum fields. What we see are very dependable and well-defined phenomenon.

Also you may be the one who is anthropomorphizing consciousness. You may be pushing an anthropomorphic human consciousness onto the universe, whereas I may be attributing to it a totally different concept of awareness.

Finally. Religion?

Well that's a quite vague term itself. In fact, for me the term religion typically means one of two things.

1. To do things with dutiful dedication and consistency.

You could walk your dog religiously, you could study physics religiously, or you could adhere to performing spiritual rituals religiously. In this sense religion exist even in a secular world, and doesn't necessarily need to have anything do with an idea of any gods.

2. A firm believer in dogma or mythological tales.

This could also be considered to be religion. Again it's something that's being done dutifully with dedication and consistency as above, but in this case it's specifically associated with a particular doctrine or "religious belief" (i.e. a belief that a person need to worship a God religiously)

By these terms my view of the cosmos potentially being a conscious mind would not be a religion at all. It's simply a hypothesis based on various observations made by science itself. Along with a sentiment of thought similar to that which I quoted a few posts ago by Stephen Hawking:



[center]What is it that breathes fire into the equations
and makes a universe for them to describe?

- Stephan Hawking[/center]

Would you say that Stephan Hawking is then a religious person who believes in "Fairy Dust"?

I think the question he asks is a credible question.

What breathes fire into the universe and makes it what it is?

I personally don't take this question for granted.

It seems to me that basically you do.

You seem to just shrug off the fact that this universe is even capable of evolving into sentient thinking beings. So much so, that you appear to act as though it's utterly ridiculous to even think there might be something more to it than just a Big Bang accident of secular plasma.

We could basically rephrase the question and ask, "Is the universe a Divine Dream, or a Secular Fart?"

I'm taking the position that, if the universe is a Divine Dream, then there must be a Dreamer.

Sounds like a reasonable position to me.

You seem to be taking the position that, if the universe is a Secular Fart, then there is no need for a Cosmic Farter.



Sorry. I'm just being funny here.

But really, where does the idea that the universe is just a secular accident have any real merit? It seems to me that this is just as groundless of an assumption as anything can be.

How would a purely secular universe not already be its own form of "Fairy Dust"?

I don't see where anything has been gained by taking that position.

I mean when you think about it, secular atheists seem to have "Taken over the sciences" to the point where they chastise anyone for even remotely thinking that the universe might potentially have been something more than a secular fart of plasma that came out of nowhere for no reason.

Why should that not itself be considered a "Fairy Dust" hypothesis?

Or perhaps we should seriously call it the "Fairy Fart" hypothesis?

I'm not intending to be rude here, but I am trying to make a point at how this hypothesis doesn't truly have any more validity than another other speculation.

Why should people be chastised, or made fun of, for thinking that there might be more to the universe than meets the eye?

We don't have any hardcore evidence that the universe is a lifeless secular fairy fart.

[SailingCyclops]

No.

First off, I never said that the universe is conscious but rather I simply raised the question of whether it might be.

Right, this is the implication I referred to in a previous post. To imply that the universe might be conscious, no matter what you define the universe to be, is to assign it a biological quality; a quality of life; a quality of being.

How might the universe be conscious? What mechanism could possibly exist to bring this about?

I think this is the core of where our differences lie. As far as we know, consciousness can only reside in a living being. You see where this leads don't you?

[SailingCyclops]

By these terms my view of the cosmos potentially being a conscious mind would not be a religion at all. It's simply a hypothesis based on various observations made by science itself. Along with a sentiment of thought similar to that which I quoted a few posts ago by Stephen Hawking:



[center]What is it that breathes fire into the equations
and makes a universe for them to describe?

- Stephan Hawking[/center]

Would you say that Stephan Hawking is then a religious person who believes in "Fairy Dust"?

I think the question he asks is a credible question.

What breathes fire into the universe and makes it what it is?

I personally don't take this question for granted.

It seems to me that basically you do.

I have no idea what Stephan is talking about. A metaphorical query about why things are as they are perhaps.

I don't believe he is talking about a universal cosmic sentience however. That would be a step too far for a brilliant scientist given the fact that there is no evidence for it. Einstein used the god concept to make a point, but he used it metaphorically not literally. Einstein was an atheist as I am sure Hawking is.

If indeed the cosmos is a conscious mind, and you can prove that, you have proved the existence of what many would call god.

[SailingCyclops]

Also you may be the one who is anthropomorphizing consciousness. You may be pushing an anthropomorphic human consciousness onto the universe, whereas I may be attributing to it a totally different concept of awareness.

Yes I am. Consciousness can only exist in a living being. Unless you can show how consciousness can exist in inanimate objects, that is the case. What I am not doing, and what you are implying, is that the universe is a conscious being. By doing so you are anthropomorphizing the universe. What am I missing here?

[Divine Insight]

First off, I never said that the universe is conscious but rather I simply raised the question of whether it might be.

Right, this is the implication I referred to in a previous post. To imply that the universe might be conscious, no matter what you define the universe to be, is to assign it a biological quality; a quality of life; a quality of being.

A biological quality? How can you be sure that biology is required for consciousness? We live on a speck of dust in a universe that is truly beyond our ability to even comprehend in terms of size.

Even just the visible universe alone, which is believed to be only a small part of the actual universe, which may potentially even be infinite for all we know, contains over 70 sextrillion stars.

I'm pretty sure this is 70 thousand million million million stars.

Or 70,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 stars.

That isn't even a number our minds can even begin to comprehend. So you have 1 example of conscious life out of 70,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 possibilities and you're happy to conclude that all life must be biological?

I suppose I just don't think that way.

How might the universe be conscious? What mechanism could possibly exist to bring this about?

Well, we now know that the universe is ultimately described by Quantum Mechanics. And within the quantum domain information between various parts of the universe can be instantaneously known non-locally without even any need for restrictions of the speed of light traveling through the universe.

I then have valid reasons to believe that a vast quantum supercomputer may very well exist beyond what we even consider to be "physical". And that quantum supercomputer may very well be "conscious" in some way, and even "alive". But clearly it's not going to be biological. It's going to be an entirely different kind of entity. An entity beyond our wildest imagination.

I think this is the core of where our differences lie. As far as we know, consciousness can only reside in a living being. You see where this leads don't you?

The only place I see it leading to is you jumping to the conclusion that your very limited knowledge of reality is all there is.

I personally see no reason to jump to that conclusion. From my perspective that conclusion is totally unwarranted and unjustifiable.

We have barely scratched the surface of discovering the true nature of reality. We don't even know for sure how many dimensions we exist in. We thought it was 3 dimensions of space and 1 separate dimension of time, all quite rigid and absolute. Then, not very long ago, we discover that it's actually a single fabric of 4-dimensional spacetime that is extremely malleable in very strange ways. And now we are being told by the Scientific Community to hold onto our seat belts because the universe might actually have 11-dimensions!

And here you are talking to me like as if we actually have a clue about reality?

I'd say we're still babies trying to figure out what the heck is going on.

And you're going to tell me that we have no reason to believe that conscious could exist without biology?

I think computer scientists would argue with you on that one as they are hoping to create conscious brains using silicon chips some day. What happens to biological consciousness as being special when they succeed?

And if they can make a rocks think, then who's to say the universe hasn't already made thinking rocks somewhere out there in the universe? We often find that when we think we've invented something new, we discover that the universe actually did it first.

Moreover, if you're a hardcore secular atheist, then surely you're aware that we are nothing more than an advance form of primate. We are barely monkeys living on a planet, and we are still in our infancy. We are "The Planet of the Baby Apes".

Why should we conclude that our current understanding of reality is so incredibly complete that we can start ruling things out that don't seem to match up with our extremely limited knowledge of reality.

I think you're perfectly correct when you suggest that we will need to agree to disagree. Because you're acting like we already know it all. Whereas I'm taking a completely different perspective on that. As far as I'm concerned human discovery of reality is in it's extreme infancy.

~~~~

Think about this just for a moment if you can.

How long have humans been on planet Earth? 4 or 5 million years? Counting the earliest forms of hominids?

How long have they been technological? Maybe 50,000 years depending on how you want to define technology?

When did they harness electricity? Only in the last few hundred years?

I was born the very year that the transistor was invented in 1949.

Our modern scientific understanding of the world is truly only a few hundred years old.

How long did the dinosaurs live on Earth? Something like 200 million years.

Yet we've only been around for a few million years. With only the last few hundred truly being insightful in terms of modern scientific knowledge.

And here you are acting like we've probably learned everything there is to know in those few hundred years?

And now for my next question:

What if humans happen to live as long as the dinosaurs? What if we continue on for another 195 million years. Do you think that those people are going to still be sitting around believing the limited knowledge we have today?

I seriously doubt it.

That would be a pretty boring 195 million years for sure!

I suspect by that time they will have learned about conscious awareness that we aren't even capable of hypothesizing about today.

So I guess I'm just not prepared to accept that our current state of knowledge today represents any kind of conclusive final results. I think there are far more possibilities open. And so I'm not as prepared to seal doors shut as you seem to be.

Our current scientific knowledge just isn't that complete. By far.