The Limits of Science

[mgb]

The limits of science.

1. The primitive.

Science is primitive in that it studies only primitive things; how atoms are joined together, how energy flows through physical systems, how spacetime is shaped and so on.
Given this limitation the rationality that emerges from science remains primitive if it stays within the sphere of materialism because matter is primitive.

With respect to the assertion of primitivism, 'evolved' would pertain to the personal; the mystery of being, life, consciousness, creativity, intelligence and the reality of the person.

To argue that the mystery of being and the reality of the person can be encompassed by the primitive rationale of science is like saying literature can be encompassed by the primitive logic of Boolean algebra. It is hardly feasable.

The rationale of science has not made any progress in addressing the mystery of being and of the person and the argument that these phenomena are within the domain of science, is an article of faith, rather than a realistic reflection of the realm of science.

2. Properties and emergence.

In earlier times it was thought that the classical (physical) universe held within itself, the explanation for its own existence. This idea was shattered with the advent of quantum mechanics which shows that the classical system is an emergent property of the foundational quantum spacetime of energy. The cause of the classical universe is outside it. In this respect, science does not explain the classical universe, it describes it. A causes B is a description of what is happening. What A and B really are would constitute an explanation.

Quantum reality has not fared any better. There are mathematical descriptions of what is happening (astoundingly accurate in many cases) but what it is that is happening and what makes it happen is as opaque as ever. What energy is, and why it behaves as it does, is a mystery and until that mystery is resolved there are only relative explanations or descriptions, in scientific understanding. No doubt, a large part of this problem concerns the fact that there is no logical reason as to why the laws of nature are what they are, since they are, or seem to be, contingent. Any ultimate explanation must address the phenomena of existence and being. What are existence and being?

3. Being

Our sense of being is the most precious and evolved aspect of human experience and it is completely outside the realm of science. It is hard to see how it can be reduced to material descriptions. A neuroscientist puts his finger on a thing and says 'we are nothing more than' (meaning a collection of neurons etc). But the thing under his finger must be interpreted and this is not easy; at all times the dictum 'Correlation is not causation' must be observed. Just because A and B are found together does not automatically mean that A causes B (there may be an unknown C, such that C causes A and C causes B). Just because neural activity is associated with thought does not mean it creates thought.

An analogy would be an internet page on a computer screen. If someone, not knowing what the internet is, decides to examine the situation he may look at the various systems and sub systems in the computer and learn that these systems are, somehow, making the page appear on screen. He can get into quite a bit of detail with this and eventually come to the conclusion that the computer has created the page, as well as the meaning of the words on the page. Every thread of his rationale tells him that the page originated in the computer and, while there is some truth in this (the computer organizes the page to be displayed) he has gone too far if he becomes convinced that the computer wrote the page and produced it in its entirety. In reality the page was broadcast from a remote server and the meaning in its text was created by a human mind.

Likewise with thought and the brain. The brain organizes many things, but it does not think. At least science has not shown that it does and any 'evidence' going in this direction can be subtly misleading.

4. Intellect and intelligence

Intellect and intelligence are not the same. Intelligence is a creative understanding that is a faculty of the conscious mind and of being. Intellect is an instrument of the intelligence. For example, creative intelligence in art, music, literature and the conscious apprehension of other minds and of being, is far more than reductive intellect. Science, for the most part, is dependent on the intellect, which is primitive, because intellect is essentially reductive. (It may be that the intellect evolved to test and to organize the flow of experiences as they come to us through our senses; to examine and grasp the logic of everyday physical experience.) The best science is when the intellect is imbued with the higher creative intelligence of the mind. But it is hard to see how it can work the other way; how intellect can inform intelligence, except by the most complicated philosophical routes.

Science relies on the intellect to discern the patterns that are behind physical reality. This bringing into focus the patterns behind physical appearances, is the essence of science.

Equally, the creative intelligence discerns the patterns behind the world of conscious experience. In this respect, the intelligence, in discerning the order and patterns in the word of being, is to being what the intellect is to science.
That is, the intellect in relation to material world, is as the intelligence is in relation to the world of being and consciousness.
Both are concerned with comprehending the order of the world, on different levels.

5. Proof

Some materialists seem to argue that only things that can be proved are admissable as elements of a world view. This view has proven to be misguided, as the failure of Logical Positivism shows. Also, there are things that are true that are not proved. For example, radio waves were not part of the world of things proved during the Middle Ages. Yet they were as real then as they are now. How one would form a world view based on proved things during the Middle Ages, is hard to see. Yet we exist in a world today where things proved are seen to be sufficient as a foundation for a world view. This cannot be adaquate. Firstly, because things proved will always only be a small subset of all truth. Secondly because proof, in the absolute, or near absolue, sense is only in terms of primitive truths; material relations and mathematical relationships.

This subset of primitive proved truths is hardly sufficient to address onthological questions concerneing the nature of being and consciousness. This means that a world view that emerges from a subset must be on very shaky ground because it does not contain unproved things that are true. A dramatic example is how the finitude of facts concerning the classical universe led scientists to believe that a whole world view could be constructed from those facts. As it turns out, facts about the classical universe are, in reality, only concerned with emergent properties (matter) of the mysterious quantum world.

Equally, Hilbert's attempts to formalize all mathematics and put it on a firm footing, were destroyed by Godel's Incompleteness Theorem. Mystery leads to the appearance of certainty and certainty is undermined by the very investigations that establish it.

And still, the world of life, being, creativity, consciousness - the highest points of the evolution of the universe - remain as elusive as ever.

[TSGracchus]

[Replying to post 177 by mgb]


mgb: "You can say it just like that? All bad?"

That is how the revolutionaries saw them. I suspect you see all Communists (tm) or all atheists as "bad".

mgb: "The fact is, if you can justify murder so can religious people, using your 'logic', justify their crimes."

And so they have, and so they do.

mgb: "But it is not about the details. Murder is murder."

Unless it is war, or "justice", or an "honor killing"! Who are as righteous as a lynch mob? To kill in crusade or jihad is holy, although those slaughtered might claim murder.

mgb: "You can't just single out religion."

And I didn't. I clearly pointed out that religion was merely one of the ways that people divide themselves into in-groups and out-groups.

I see several possibilities: You have trouble understanding what you read, you cannot see what is plainly written, or you deliberately misrepresent the positions with which you disagree. Then again, you might have your perceptions distorted by excessive zeal.

I suppose I could just ignore you. But perhaps if I continue to point out that you make statements contrary to fact, I might eventually pierce your cognitive filters.

[mgb]

[Replying to post 173 by mgb]

Oh yes, dogma does matter. Murder under the banner of materialist atheism.

But we don't actually see it carried out under the banner of atheism. The Bible, on the other hand, is filled with murder committed under the aegis of God. The apologist will, of course, whitewash God's actions no matter how heinous.

Communist oppression is ideologically atheist. But it is not about tit-for-tat examples, it is about how human wickedness uses all kinds of things (religious or atheist) to justify evil. It is more complicated than just giving examples.

[brunumb]

[Replying to post 182 by mgb]

Communist oppression is ideologically atheist.

In essential philosophical principles, Christianity and communism are identical.

Acts 4
31 And when they had prayed, the place was shaken where they were assembled together; and they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and they spake the word of God with boldness.
32 And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul: neither said any of them that ought of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common.
33 And with great power gave the apostles witness of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus: and great grace was upon them all.
34 Neither was there any among them that lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold,
35 And laid them down at the apostles' feet: and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need.

[mgb]

[Replying to post 182 by mgb]

Communist oppression is ideologically atheist.

In essential philosophical principles, Christianity and communism are identical.

Acts 4
31 And when they had prayed, the place was shaken where they were assembled together; and they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and they spake the word of God with boldness.
32 And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul: neither said any of them that ought of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common.
33 And with great power gave the apostles witness of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus: and great grace was upon them all.
34 Neither was there any among them that lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold,
35 And laid them down at the apostles' feet: and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need.

More correctly, some of their social aspects are similar. But that hardly mitigates against Christianity.

[brunumb]

[Replying to post 182 by mgb]

mgb: "Besides, it is always easy to excuse evil."

Perhaps you could begin excusing this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_terrorism

But it is not about tit-for-tat examples, it is about how human wickedness uses all kinds of things (religious or atheist) to justify evil.

Is that how you excuse the evil perpetrated by Christians? Let me guess. Time to cue the "No True Christian" trope.

[brunumb]

It occurs to me that this thread is supposed to be a discussion of the limits of science. With that in mind I will discontinue participating in the recent sidetrack.

[TSGracchus]

[Replying to post 182 by mgb]

mgb: "Communist oppression is ideologically atheist.

And yet the early Christians, as documented in Acts, attempted communism. They weren't morally up to it, to be sure. They cheated, and had to give it up as a bad idea, just as the Soviet Union, had to give it up, and as China is in the process of doing. Communism usually degenerates rapidly into oligarchy and dictatorship, where nobody owns anything but some have the use of way more than others.
In fact the only remotely successful communist endeavors have been religious in nature, such as monasteries and the Hutterite Bruderhofen.

I think that you are merely indulging in the common human foible of labeling everything you dislike as evil, stuffing it all into the same pigeon-hole, and then claiming it is all, somehow, inextricably the same.

[mgb]

[quote="I think that you are merely indulging in the common human foible of labeling everything you dislike as evil[/quote]


I'm only responding to your criticisms of religion.

[Bust Nak]

It is because you cannot have properties without substance. A property is an abstraction, that is all.

Right, but it's still not clear why not having an E would imply properties without substance.

It wouldn't, necessarily. But even an infinite/circular regression needs E. Without E, the universe would only be an abstraction.

You seem, to me, to be contradicting yourselve here. If infinite/circular regression does not necessarily imply an absence of substance, then why would it need any E? Where would E fit into ... P3 -> P1 -> P0 -> P2 ...?

[TSGracchus]

[Replying to post 188 by mgb]

Post 182, mgb: "Communist oppression is ideologically atheist. But it is not about tit-for-tat examples, it is about how human wickedness uses all kinds of things (religious or atheist) to justify evil. It is more complicated than just giving examples."

To which I replied, Post 187, TSGracchus: "And yet the early Christians, as documented in Acts, attempted communism. They weren't morally up to it, to be sure. They cheated, and had to give it up as a bad idea, just as the Soviet Union, had to give it up, and as China is in the process of doing. Communism usually degenerates rapidly into oligarchy and dictatorship, where nobody owns anything but some have the use of way more than others.
In fact the only remotely successful communist endeavors have been religious in nature, such as monasteries and the Hutterite Bruderhofen.

I think that you are merely indulging in the common human foible of labeling everything you dislike as evil, stuffing it all into the same pigeon-hole, and then claiming it is all, somehow, inextricably the same."

This provoked the reply, Post 188, mgb:

"I think that you are merely indulging in the common human foible of labeling everything you dislike as evil."

"I'm only responding to your criticisms of religion."

No, I was simply pointing out your error in claiming that, "Communist oppression is ideologically atheist.", by examples of successful religious communism. You think communism is evil. You think atheism is evil. You put them in the same category, so in the moral sense, they are to you, equivalent.
But that equivalence is contra-factual.
I also note, without surprise (!), that you ignored the real point of the post to focus on a fragment and misinterpret even that bit.



.