Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,809 Year: 3,066/9,624 Month: 911/1,588 Week: 94/223 Day: 5/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Will scientists ever find the connection between the physical and metaphysical?
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 1 of 40 (329923)
07-08-2006 6:56 PM


I have nearly finished reading Lisa Randall's book "Warped Passages". It's a good book but I have to admit largely over my head. There was a statement in the liner that I found very interesting.
Lisa Randall writes:
We understand far more about the world than we did just a few short years ago - and yet we are more uncertain about the true nature of the universe than ever before. Have we reached a point of scientific discovery so advanced that the laws of physics as we know them are simply not sufficient? Will we all soon have to accept explanations that previously remained in the realm of science fiction?
I would like to add to the last sentence.
"Will we all soon have to accept explanations that previously remained in the realm of science fiction or the metaphysical?"
Gerald Shroeder in his book "The Hidden Face of God" connects science with the metaphysical by claiming amongst other things, as I understand him, that what is actually basic to the universe is particles of information. His thinking is obviously esoteric, but will it ever go beyond that?
There are others such as Alister McGrath of Oxford who has written "The Science of God", who are trying to connect the physical and the metaphysical.
Frankly I don't have sufficient knowledge to do anything much more than ask the question but I am interested in hearing people's opinions that are based on more than their theology. (I recognize of course that if one believes that the metaphysical doesn't exist they aren't about to believe that science will ever encounter it. )
The question then is; is it possible for scientific research to ever knowingly encounter the metaphysical?
I suggest "Is it science?"
Edited by GDR, : To suggest a forum
Edited by AdminPD, : Fix typo
Edited by GDR, : typo

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by crashfrog, posted 07-09-2006 1:26 AM GDR has replied
 Message 15 by randman, posted 07-09-2006 2:22 PM GDR has not replied
 Message 16 by PaulK, posted 07-09-2006 3:19 PM GDR has not replied
 Message 18 by anglagard, posted 07-09-2006 6:08 PM GDR has not replied

  
AdminPD
Inactive Administrator


Message 2 of 40 (330013)
07-09-2006 1:03 AM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 3 of 40 (330015)
07-09-2006 1:26 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by GDR
07-08-2006 6:56 PM


The question then is; is it possible for scientific research to ever knowingly encounter the metaphysical?
If that happened, wouldn't it, by definition, be physical? The problem I have here is the same problem I have with asking if "science can study the supernatural"; neither "metaphysical" or "supernatural" seem have definitions that would allow metaphysical or supernatural things to actually have any effect in the real world, yet somehow be beyond the realm of science.
It's all too easy to understand things like "magic" and "psychics" and other things as "supernatural", because we intuitively grasp that, when these constructs come up in fiction or mythology, they're like extentions to the "natural" laws from our world - say, for instance, Dungeons and Dragons has both Newtonian gravity and arcane spells. What people don't seem to pick up on is that, if these things were present in our world, they'd be part of our natural laws (just as they are held to be in the fictional conceit of D&D.) So they wouldn't be any more supernatural or metaphysical then any other technology.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by GDR, posted 07-08-2006 6:56 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by GDR, posted 07-09-2006 2:18 AM crashfrog has replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 4 of 40 (330021)
07-09-2006 2:18 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by crashfrog
07-09-2006 1:26 AM


crashfrog writes:
If that happened, wouldn't it, by definition, be physical? The problem I have here is the same problem I have with asking if "science can study the supernatural"; neither "metaphysical" or "supernatural" seem have definitions that would allow metaphysical or supernatural things to actually have any effect in the real world, yet somehow be beyond the realm of science.
I'm not sure that is necessarily true. I'm not suggesting that science would be able to study the metaphysical but that they might discover the point where the physical is connected to the metaphysical.
For example I found Gerald Schroeder's book, "The hidden Face of God" interesting. I'm not informed enough to critique the science but he is highly qualified. Here is a quote from the prologue of his book.
Gerald Shroeder writes:
A single consciousness, a universal wisdom, pervades the universe. And more than that. The discoveries of science, those that search the quantum nature of subatomic matter, have moved us to the brink of a startling realization: all existence is the expression of this wisdom. In the laboratories we experience it as information that first physically articulated as energy and then condensed into the form of matter. Every particle, every being, from atom to human, appears to represent a level of information, of wisdom.
This is just one scientist with a theory that may or may not be right. Science has speculated with string theory that each particle is in actuality tiny strings of energy. Shroeder goes one step further and suggests that the basis of that energy is information.
Let's assume Schroeder is correct. I think that we would agree that at some point science would be able to prove that all particles are tiny little bits of energy. Would the physical sciences be able to make that next step and determine that before a particle is a bit of energy it is actually a bit of information. If they could I would think that would mean that science had found the connection between the physical and the metaphysical.
This of course is just one man's theory. There may well be others. On the assumption that the metaphysical does exist, I would assume that at some point there must be a point of connection.

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by crashfrog, posted 07-09-2006 1:26 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by Percy, posted 07-09-2006 3:19 AM GDR has replied
 Message 6 by CK, posted 07-09-2006 3:58 AM GDR has not replied
 Message 8 by crashfrog, posted 07-09-2006 9:02 AM GDR has not replied
 Message 29 by randman, posted 07-09-2006 11:26 PM GDR has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22390
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 5 of 40 (330025)
07-09-2006 3:19 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by GDR
07-09-2006 2:18 AM


If metaphysics is defined as the study of the ultimate nature of reality, and if that nature is deemed beyond the realm of the observable, sensory universe, then science can't find out anything about it. As soon as you decide that science actually *can* reach scientific conclusions about such things, then you've violated the initial assumption that the metaphysical nature of the universe is beyond the realm of science.
In my opinion, the only way discussions like this that try to connect science to the metaphysical or to the supernatural can only continue while the definitions of metaphysical and supernatural are kept vague. As soon as you carefully nail down the definitions there can no longer be a discussion because the conclusions are obvious and derive from the definitions.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by GDR, posted 07-09-2006 2:18 AM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by GDR, posted 07-09-2006 10:19 AM Percy has replied

  
CK
Member (Idle past 4127 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 6 of 40 (330028)
07-09-2006 3:58 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by GDR
07-09-2006 2:18 AM


GDR writes:
I'm not suggesting that science would be able to study the metaphysical but that they might discover the point where the physical is connected to the metaphysical.
But surely by "discover", you must mean measure or observe and if we can do that on a repeatable basis....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by GDR, posted 07-09-2006 2:18 AM GDR has not replied

  
Annafan
Member (Idle past 4578 days)
Posts: 418
From: Belgium
Joined: 08-08-2005


Message 7 of 40 (330042)
07-09-2006 8:59 AM


Words invented to keep it "interesting"
It seems like "metaphysical" and "supernatural" are just words used by people who don't like the sentence "we don't know (yet)". That's all there is to it, IMO.

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 8 of 40 (330043)
07-09-2006 9:02 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by GDR
07-09-2006 2:18 AM


I'm not suggesting that science would be able to study the metaphysical but that they might discover the point where the physical is connected to the metaphysical.
Whatever anything physical is connected to is physical, by definition. The scope of "physical" includes all actors that interact with the things we already recognize as physical.
In other words - I still don't understand what "point" you're talking about.
I think that we would agree that at some point science would be able to prove that all particles are tiny little bits of energy. Would the physical sciences be able to make that next step and determine that before a particle is a bit of energy it is actually a bit of information. If they could I would think that would mean that science had found the connection between the physical and the metaphysical.
I don't think so. If science progressed in that way, it would mean that science had discovered that information was physical.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by GDR, posted 07-09-2006 2:18 AM GDR has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by Percy, posted 07-09-2006 10:01 AM crashfrog has not replied
 Message 30 by randman, posted 07-09-2006 11:29 PM crashfrog has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22390
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 9 of 40 (330048)
07-09-2006 10:01 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by crashfrog
07-09-2006 9:02 AM


crash writes:
I don't think so. If science progressed in that way, it would mean that science had discovered that information was physical.
This is from the introduction to Decoding the Universe by Charles Seife:
Information theory is so powerful because information is physical. Information is not just an abstract concept, and it is not just facts or figures, dates or names. It is a concrete property of matter and energy that is quantifiable and measurable. It is every bit as real as the weight of a chunk of lead or the energy stored in an atomic warhead, and just like mass and energy, information is subject to a set of physical laws that dictate how it can behave - how information can be manipulated, transferred, duplicated, erased, or destroyed. And everything in the universe must obey the laws of information, because everything in the universe is shaped by the information it contains.
What he's saying isn't really just a strongly worded metaphor. At heart, the laws of our universe are actually laws of information.
By the way, for anyone who recalls the discussion in the Codes, Evolution, and Intelligent Design thread where there were some claiming that starlight and tree rings do not contain encoded information, there's this from further on in the introduction:
Every creature on Earth is a creature of information; information sits at the center of our cells, and information rattles around in our brains. But it's not just living beings that manipulate and process information. Every particle in the universe, every electron, every atom, every particle not yet discovered, is packed with information - information that is often inaccessible to us, but information nonetheless, information that can be transferred, processed, and dissipated. Each star in the universe, each one of the countless galaxies in the heavens, is packed full of information, information that can escape and travel. That information is always flowing, moving from place to place, spreading throughout the cosmos.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by crashfrog, posted 07-09-2006 9:02 AM crashfrog has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by nwr, posted 07-09-2006 10:43 AM Percy has replied
 Message 32 by GDR, posted 07-10-2006 12:24 AM Percy has not replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 10 of 40 (330056)
07-09-2006 10:19 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by Percy
07-09-2006 3:19 AM


Percy writes:
In my opinion, the only way discussions like this that try to connect science to the metaphysical or to the supernatural can only continue while the definitions of metaphysical and supernatural are kept vague. As soon as you carefully nail down the definitions there can no longer be a discussion because the conclusions are obvious and derive from the definitions.
Any discussion of course has to assume that the metaphysical exists. It seems to me then that there is likely a point where the physical and the metaphysical meet. As a theist I contend that the two meet through our consciousness, which would be outside the realm of science, but does it also connect with everything physical more directly? I would imagine that if there is a point of connection it would have to be through the very small or the very large.
As for the very small, let's assume that at some point in the future some version of string theory is proven to be correct, and that all of creation is made up of bits of energy. (That almost sounds metaphysical itself. ) Wouldn't the next area of research be to determine what it is that causes these bits of energy to exhibit their individual characteristics. If this research found that there is no physical cause for characteristics then wouldn't the assumption be made that the cause must be metaphysical?
As for the very large we can go back to something cavediver said which I found fascinating. He contends, (I sure hope I have this right), that the 4D universe that we know is a actually a projection. I thought that maybe the projector would be where we would bump up against the metaphysical but he said "no" .His contention was that science would actually be able to study the projector. The question then would be what is giving the projector its characteristics.
It is almost unbelievable how far science has come in such a short period of time. Isn't it possible, or even likely, that at some point science will come to the end of what it can learn of the physical world. At that point wouldn't we have to ask the question of what lies beyond that. What causes particles to behave as they do or what causes the projector to project what it does. If it can be ascertained that there is no physical cause then wouldn't the cause have to be metaphysical?

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Percy, posted 07-09-2006 3:19 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by Percy, posted 07-09-2006 11:09 AM GDR has not replied
 Message 14 by sidelined, posted 07-09-2006 11:33 AM GDR has not replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 11 of 40 (330062)
07-09-2006 10:43 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by Percy
07-09-2006 10:01 AM


metaphysics is mythology
This is from the introduction to Decoding the Universe by Charles Seife:
Thanks for the quotes.
I strongly disagree with Seife. I think his view is based on a seriously mistaken way of looking at the world.
As to the connection between the physical and the metaphysical - in my opinion the metaphysical is a figment of our imagination that comes from the same kind of mistaken outlook. We have to live in the world that we observe, so there is no need to trouble ourselves about a mythical metaphysical.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Percy, posted 07-09-2006 10:01 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by Percy, posted 07-09-2006 11:14 AM nwr has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22390
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 12 of 40 (330064)
07-09-2006 11:09 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by GDR
07-09-2006 10:19 AM


Anything that is part of the sensory universe is amenable to study by science. Anything that is not part of the sensory universe is not amenable to study by science. What you're doing is arguing for unsupported speculation to become part of science. By definition, speculation unsupported by evidence is not science.
Unsupported speculation that mentions genuine evidence is like a fictional story placed in a real-world setting.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by GDR, posted 07-09-2006 10:19 AM GDR has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by randman, posted 07-09-2006 4:21 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22390
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 13 of 40 (330066)
07-09-2006 11:14 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by nwr
07-09-2006 10:43 AM


Re: metaphysics is mythology
nwr writes:
I strongly disagree with Seife. I think his view is based on a seriously mistaken way of looking at the world.
Grist for its own thread if you're interested, but the difference probably boils down to a trivial disagreement about how one defines certain terms.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by nwr, posted 07-09-2006 10:43 AM nwr has not replied

  
sidelined
Member (Idle past 5907 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 14 of 40 (330070)
07-09-2006 11:33 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by GDR
07-09-2006 10:19 AM


GDR
Any discussion of course has to assume that the metaphysical exists.
That is not correct. It does not have to.
As a theist I contend that the two meet through our consciousness, which would be outside the realm of science, but does it also connect with everything physical more directly?
But consciousness studies {V.S. Ramachandran, Francis Crick, Christof Koch, etc.} point to the physical make-up of the conscious mind. The consciousness is quite well within the purview of science.
As for the very small, let's assume that at some point in the future some version of string theory is proven to be correct, and that all of creation is made up of bits of energy.
We have no idea of just what energy is GDR. We only know it as a quantity that is conserved in the physical processes that nature undergoes.
Wouldn't the next area of research be to determine what it is that causes these bits of energy to exhibit their individual characteristics. If this research found that there is no physical cause for characteristics then wouldn't the assumption be made that the cause must be metaphysical?
This sounds awfully close to a "God of the Gaps" theology I think. It may well be that nature is only accesible to investigation to a certain point and no further. Since our inability to delve further simply means that nature has barred further investigation as a consequence of its very make-up does not mean the the answer is metaphysics it simply means we cannot know.
Indeed nature does limit us in this way through the Heisenburg uncertainty principle yet the reasons are physical in nature.
As for the very large we can go back to something cavediver said which I found fascinating. He contends, (I sure hope I have this right), that the 4D universe that we know is a actually a projection. I thought that maybe the projector would be where we would bump up against the metaphysical but he said "no" .His contention was that science would actually be able to study the projector. The question then would be what is giving the projector its characteristics.
Do you see a pattern here though?> We investigate further and further into realms of the abstract and each new corner turns over a further physical explanation. This makes sense since the previous investigation was also physical in nature we should not be surprised that this is the result. That said, however, why does the purely physical picture raise such a barrier to acceptance in you?
It is almost unbelievable how far science has come in such a short period of time. Isn't it possible, or even likely, that at some point science will come to the end of what it can learn of the physical world. At that point wouldn't we have to ask the question of what lies beyond that. What causes particles to behave as they do or what causes the projector to project what it does. If it can be ascertained that there is no physical cause then wouldn't the cause have to be metaphysical?
We would not be able to state such since we do not yet know what is meant by the metaphysical.If we come to the end of our ability to investigate then the default need only be that we can have no idea.
Edited by sidelined, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by GDR, posted 07-09-2006 10:19 AM GDR has not replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4898 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 15 of 40 (330094)
07-09-2006 2:22 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by GDR
07-08-2006 6:56 PM


yes
You know my opinion. We have already crossed over into what was formerly known as "spiritual" or metaphysical in the realm of quantum physics, and perhaps other areas.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by GDR, posted 07-08-2006 6:56 PM GDR has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024