|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,889 Year: 4,146/9,624 Month: 1,017/974 Week: 344/286 Day: 65/40 Hour: 1/5 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Will scientists ever find the connection between the physical and metaphysical? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminPD Inactive Administrator |
Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1495 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22502 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CK Member (Idle past 4156 days) Posts: 3221 Joined: |
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....
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Annafan Member (Idle past 4607 days) Posts: 418 From: Belgium Joined: |
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 1495 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22502 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6412 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 4.5 |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22502 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22502 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
sidelined Member (Idle past 5936 days) Posts: 3435 From: Edmonton Alberta Canada Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4927 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
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.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024