Science is running out of steam

[walor]

*Originally posted by rsa *
As long as you are not “anti-science”, I doubt many people here would give you much grief about what else you choose to believe in matters of theology.

Welcome rsa. Stick around and you may wish to review that statement. Or check out some of the recent creationist/evolutionist threads.

As pointed out before, there are some things which are outside the realm of science. If you chose to assign those things (the “why’s”) to God, I’ve got no problem with that. You’ve probably heard of “The Theory of Everything” (TOE). Maybe science will find one someday or maybe not, but even if we find a TOE, it’s not going to literally explain everything. A TOE is not going to tell us why the universe is the way it is. It’s also not going to tell us what the 11:00 news will be reporting a thousand years from now.

I agree with this. The question then becomes one of balance between the extent to which we see TOE as the answer and the extent to which we incorporate other, non-(or less-) scientific approaches for understanding our world.

As far as science being “self limiting”, I can see how it could appear that way to you. If it turns out that “it’s turtles all the way down”, then science will never be able to describe every aspect of the natural universe. Even if that turns out to be the case, I don’t think that will tell us much about the question of God.

And don’t forget, science seems to be doing a fairly good job at the quantum level (how many turtles down is that? ), of demonstrating that some of our physical laws can’t always be counted on to hold good.

Hope you have fun on the boards.

pax

[rsa]

*Originally posted by walor *
Welcome rsa. Stick around and you may wish to review that statement. Or check out some of the recent creationist/evolutionist threads.

Thanks for the welcome. I have been lurking for quite a while and realize that there are always a few folks who are close-minded or disrespectful of other’s beliefs (or both). I imagine you learn who to ignore after a while.

*Originally posted by walor *
And don’t forget, science seems to be doing a fairly good job at the quantum level (how many turtles down is that? ;)…

Well, we can always hope for ONE more level to help us make sense of QM!

…of demonstrating that some of our physical laws can’t always be counted on to hold good.

Got to disagree there. True, they may not hold true in a given theory, but that’s not the same as saying they won’t “hold good”. QM, for example, has been tested to a higher degree of precision than any other theory and it seems pretty “correct” so far.

pax to you too

[kabbes]

I think that I do actually understand walor’s point. I think it runs along the following lines:

It used to be that we lived in a discrete and finite observable world. If we wanted to know about something, then we would observe it directly. Initially that observation was by eye alone and then it became by telescope, microscope etc - but we were still directly observing that which we wanted to know about.

However with technology came the power to split our discrete, finite world into smaller and smaller parts. A near continuum of observable points opened up.

Suddenly we couldn’t observe everything directly any more. We had to observe classes of observables and extrapolate or interpolate. To use andros’s analogy, we started to have to assume that if one m&m had “m&m” written on it, then they all must have.

Worse was to come. We started observing effects on observables that came from sources we could’t observe by first order means. We had to employ second-order methods to find out more.

I think that walor’s problem is that as our observable universe expands, the proportion of it that we can ever actually observe diminishes.

To pose another analogy: it is generally believed that Blaise Pascal was the last mathematician to know everything there was to know about mathematics available at the time of living. Certainly these days it would be impossible to know all of mathematics. In some ways this is a dilution of knowledge - as we have to specialise, we lose the ability to see the bigger picture.

Having said all that, it won’t surprise walor to learn that I disagree with him. I think that mangetout’s point is that there is no such thing as a true “first-order” observation. Everything we observe is via an interaction. Further, the assumption that all m&ms will have “m&m” printed on them entirely acceptable if we know the mechanism by which the word “m&m” appears. And the dilution of observation really just means that we have people peering at every facet of the larger whole rather than poking about on the surface.

Really, science has never been healthier. Quite the reverse from running out of steam, it seems to me that discoveries and theories have been building up and accelerating to the extent that I really wonder what will be the astonishing result in 50, 20 or even 10 years’ time. It seems almost daily that incredible advances in medicine and biological science are announced - understanding and potential cures of alzheimers, parkinsons and even the aging mechanism. We have cloned sheep and even teleported photons. Science has barely begun.

pan

[walor]

*Originally posted by kabbes *

Really, science has never been healthier. Quite the reverse from running out of steam, it seems to me that discoveries and theories have been building up and accelerating to the extent that I really wonder what will be the astonishing result in 50, 20 or even 10 years’ time.

Hi kabbes. I think you summarise my thinking well. Also, I agree with the above in terms of science’s contribution… but

I think that walor’s problem is that as our observable universe expands, the proportion of it that we can ever actually observe diminishes.

Hence, it alone will not be able to provide the ultimate answers. It will run out of steam.

(I guess that the more efficient science becomes, the sooner it will run of steam)

pax

[andros]

I think that walor’s problem is that as our observable universe expands, the proportion of it that we can ever actually observe diminishes.

Hence, it alone will not be able to provide the ultimate answers. It will run out of steam.

So, Walor, you’re still convinced that all of science predicates upon direct observation? I don’t know what else I can say that hasn’t already been said.