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.

[Swami]

[Replying to post 1 by mgb]

I really appreciate your thread. I believe your thread in conjunction with my thread (Is science overrated?) provides a powerful punch to the religion of scientism. Many atheists tend to be the adherents of scientism. Many of them attack religion from a perspective that science has all the answers and that there's no need for anything else. This of course is far from the truth.

I'm no longer interested in reading any books that focus only on the Western perspective of science. I am only interested in Western perspectives that integrate some of the Eastern perspectives. I tend to stress the East because many of their religions emphasize getting in touch with self and/or consciousness. They have an extensive history of practices and experiences that maximize focus on self, e.g. meditation, yoga, etc. Scientists are now beginning to wake up to the importance of Eastern thinking, particular Buddhism, and consciousness overall.

[TSGracchus]

[Replying to post 201 by Razorsedge]

Razorsedge; "I really appreciate your (mgb) thread. I believe your thread in conjunction with my thread (Is science overrated?) provides a powerful punch to the religion of scientism."

For those not familiar with the term as used, "scientism" is any science inconsistent with some preferred system of theology. It is, in fact, a classic strawman. It is amusing to note that these religious folks will not hesitate to denigrate atheism, scientism, or naturalism as religion. On some subconscious level they realize how lame religion is. And while often claiming that "faith" is all that is necessary, they will seek scientific support for religion.

Razorsedge; "Many atheists tend to be the adherents of scientism."

Let us pack all those wicked non-believers into one pigeon hole. It is so troublesome to make too many distinctions.

Razorsedge; "Many of them attack religion from a perspective that science has all the answers and that there's no need for anything else. This of course is far from the truth."

In fact, his second statement applies to the first. If science had all the answers, all scientists would be out of a job. Science is a method for finding answers, and there is some reason to believe that is a task of infinite duration. Religion starts with assumed answers as premises and forbids doubt. See, for instance, "heresy". Since it never questions its assumptions, religion has no future. It is unchanging. It is dead, and more than dead. It is corrupt.

Razorsedge; "I'm no longer interested in reading any books that focus only on the Western perspective of science. I am only interested in Western perspectives that integrate some of the Eastern perspectives."

So we see that Razorsedge is only interested in perspectives that support his assumptions. Doubts and dissensions need not apply.

Razorsedge; "I tend to stress the East because many of their religions emphasize getting in touch with self and/or consciousness. They have an extensive history of practices and experiences that maximize focus on self, e.g. meditation, yoga, etc. Scientists are now beginning to wake up to the importance of Eastern thinking, particular Buddhism, and consciousness overall."

"Buddhism," observed one zen master, "is a finger pointed at the moon." Once you have located and identified the moon, you can use the finger to pick your nose, or perform some other humble function. To see the moon, to perceive the real, you must cleanse your mind of delusions, fears and wishful thinking.

If science had all the answers, all scientists would be out of a job. Science is a method for finding answers, and there is some reason to believe that is a task of infinite duration. Religion starts with assumed answers as premises and forbids doubt. See, for instance, "heresy".

Razorsedge; "I'm no longer interested in reading any books that focus only on the Western perspective of science. I am only interested in Western perspectives that integrate some of the Eastern perspectives."

So we see that Razorsedge is only interested in perspectives that support his assumptions. Doubts and dissensions need not apply.

Razorsedge; "I tend to stress the East because many of their religions emphasize getting in touch with self and/or consciousness. They have an extensive history of practices and experiences that maximize focus on self, e.g. meditation, yoga, etc. Scientists are now beginning to wake up to the importance of Eastern thinking, particular Buddhism, and consciousness overall."

I read somewhere that some one asked the Dalai Lama about the Eightfold Path. He said, "First there is right thought..." He paused, and continued, "I forget the rest." His point was of course that if your thought is based on everyday, uncluttered reality, the rest of Buddhism follows quite naturally and easily. All this "theology" is just dust that must be brushed from the mirror to see your own true self.

[Bust Nak]

Contingent in this respect means a contingent thing/being is a property. There cannot be properties without substance. E is necessary existence. Everything else is contingent upon it; that is, everything else is a property of it.

But why? You keep telling me what is, without the why. Sure there cannot be properties without substance, why would that mean there must be some E? I keep asking you the same question because you never seem to touch on anything deeper than "there cannot be properties without substance."

Earlier you equated E to the beginning of this universe, here it sounds like E is something more fundamental?

[mgb]

Earlier you equated E to the beginning of this universe, here it sounds like E is something more fundamental?

It is necessary substance/existence. It is not necessarily the beginning in time, it is the ontological source of the universe. It is what has always been. It existed before time. Because the universe is a set of properties it must be supported by something that is not a property, something 'before' it.

[Bust Nak]

It is necessary substance/existence.

For necessary substance/existence for what though, presumably just the universe, given this next block?

It is not necessarily the beginning in time, it is the ontological source of the universe. It is what has always been. It existed before time. Because the universe is a set of properties it must be supported by something that is not a property, something 'before' it.

You mean it must be supported by something that is not a property alone, right? There is no reason why the universe can't be supported by a property which is in turn supported by something 'before' that property.

[mgb]

You mean it must be supported by something that is not a property alone, right? There is no reason why the universe can't be supported by a property which is in turn supported by something 'before' that property.

Right. Yes, the universe is supported by energy, which is the substance of matter but energy itself may be a property, in which case it is a property of E.

[TSGracchus]

[Replying to post 206 by mgb]

mgb: "Yes, the universe is supported by energy, which is the substance of matter but energy itself may be a property, in which case it is a property of E.'

Matter, energy and plasma are different states of distorted (dependent on reference frame, non-symmetric) space-time, just as liquid, gas and solid are different states of water.

The thing is, mgb, that you have reified a metaphor.

[Bust Nak]

Right. Yes, the universe is supported by energy, which is the substance of matter but energy itself may be a property, in which case it is a property of E.

Right, but what's stopping E itself being a property of E1?

[mgb]

Right. Yes, the universe is supported by energy, which is the substance of matter but energy itself may be a property, in which case it is a property of E.

Right, but what's stopping E itself being a property of E1?

What is E1?

[Bust Nak]

Right. Yes, the universe is supported by energy, which is the substance of matter but energy itself may be a property, in which case it is a property of E.

Right, but what's stopping E itself being a property of E1?

What is E1?

Specifically? No idea. Conceptually? The explanation/substance of the property of/cause of E.