not logged in
| Maybe One Wee Small Comment Here, Nothing Really | |
Posted by:  |
pidunk 09:22 pm UTC 06/22/07 |
| In reply to: | re: NJC: Some Deep Thoughts from Insomnia - elton22 10:53 pm UTC 06/20/07 |
> Well I don't think it's as complicated or confusing as you > make out. Your language is obfuscatory and you're blurring > boundries between perceptions in the first instance, and > their analyses in the second. > This is an example of a poorly worded question: > > > Again, my questions are to explain why the forces of the > > rules themselves even exist. Their origin. > > "The forces of the rules"? What does that mean. This to my thinking is the most fascinating part of science and be science without any logical explanation. One example is Galileo's discovery and thus declaration of the Laws Of Motion. Another example is Copernicus' discovery without the slightest verification available to him that it is a Law, that the planets revolve around the Sun, and the Sun does not revolve around the Earth. Ships eventually sailed not knowing if they would fall off the flat edge or find new horizons. Science is faith exercised to its most concrete conclusion, and the "forces of rules" are first found and then taken on faith. >All we can > say is that the rules can be described as far as science > currently is. There may be more science can do, and thus > more can be described. Well, okay, science is about more than the number of courses you can take in your science department. Science is a method, applied with tools, that begins with a question, meets a hypothesis, and either a proving or a disproving, and then again. A scientific thinker meets every challenge like it is a challenge of science. Science is not the matter, but the study. >These rules only apply for the > current state of the universe we can percieve. Thus, > before the singularity known as the Big Bang, those rules > may not apply. The only thing that existed before the Big Bang is precursor to the Big Bang which denotes infinite energy and matter. Something had to bang, and it had to be big. Relative terms describe something before the beginning of time. We know what we know by deductive reasoning. Science is not rote. Science is not fixed and solid. It changes with the questions. Methods are different according to the subject and the question. >Other rules may apply, or no rules may > apply, but we can't know, and there's not a lot of purpose > in arguing over it. It is not necessarily beyond our > comprehension, but it is beyond our realm of knowledge. > Science is exactly beyond the realm of knowledge at all times. > Science is religious in that, as Kurt Godel showed in the > early 20th Century, all maths is dependent on accepted > axioms, and thus so is science. Isn't it interesting that Kurt Godel's name contains "God" in it? Hmm. Where do we go when we seek answers we can't find? Who do we imagine created all this uncreatable creation? Did HE leave anything out? Did he leave out Math? No, its in there. Did he leave out Science? No its in there. Did he give us the light for seeing and the darkness to know light? He said, let there be light. And he saw that it was good. >It depends on an accepted, > shared, worldview, and appeals to a coherence theory of > truth rather than a correspondence theory. You're > desperation for explainations of 'origins' is religious, > and, I fear, going to cause you philosophical problems > unless you let it go. Nothing wrong with religious investigation. It has a way of leading to God. | |
| reply | | |
| Previous: | re: NJC: Some Deep Thoughts from Insomnia - elton22 10:53 pm UTC 06/20/07 |
| Next: | re: NJC: Some Deep Thoughts from Insomnia - Venom 12:04 am UTC 06/21/07 |
| Thread: | |