Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Does Science Truly Represent Reality?
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 1 of 61 (414843)
08-06-2007 3:58 PM


As much as I love reading about things scientific I have a basic problem with treating science as any sort of fundamental truth.
Let us start with the idea that the universe is about 14 billion years old. We live on a planet that spins at a certain rate, rotates around the sun at a certain rate, is part of a solar system moving at a certain rate and is part of a galaxy that is presumably moving at a certain rate. We have no idea as to what our absolute velocity is or to what standard we could measure that velocity against.
We know that time decreases as velocity increases. If our velocity increased to light speed we would say that the universe just is and we would have no concept of time or change. What if our velocity within the universe would be zero then would time be infinite, and what would be the ramifications of that?
Let’s look at evolution. We have evolved from single celled life forms, (with or without God), into beings with consciousness and with 5 basic senses. With these 5 senses we perceive the universe in a particular way. What if we had evolved with different senses or with fewer senses? We have vision which is dependent on photons to perceive the universe in a specific way. What if we had a sense that instead of using photons, required gravitons to perceive the universe. Presumably that would give us a different reality.
It appears that everything that we perceive as matter is made up of particles which are nothing but points of energy. (Not being a scientist I’m out on a limb there, but even if that is not correct I think the point is valid anyway.) Through our consciousness we perceive and interpret these particles in a particular way, but our perceived reality of matter is not at all what it seems. This desk seems solid enough.
My point is that science is dependent on our particular set of senses, and our particular place in the universe to come to its conclusions. All then that science can say is that this is how we perceive things to be, but we really have no idea of how our perception of things compares with reality. Maybe with different senses we would perceive dark matter and not visible matter. Maybe if we had additional senses we would perceive a whole other world out there that we don’t even know exists.
In the end science is another level of faith. Science is required to have faith that our perception of things represents reality but there is no empirical proof that this is actually so.
I suggest one of the science forums so that it doesn't get bogged down in a religious discussion. I definitely am not advocating for a 6000 year old world, which I don't believe in, and this has nothing to do with My Christian faith. I see this as being more philosophical than anything else.

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by crashfrog, posted 08-06-2007 4:38 PM GDR has replied
 Message 4 by Percy, posted 08-06-2007 4:41 PM GDR has replied
 Message 6 by Chiroptera, posted 08-06-2007 5:27 PM GDR has replied
 Message 23 by Archer Opteryx, posted 08-07-2007 7:23 PM GDR has replied
 Message 47 by Refpunk, posted 08-18-2007 10:42 AM GDR has not replied
 Message 56 by Archer Opteryx, posted 09-10-2007 1:10 AM GDR has replied

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


Message 5 of 61 (414858)
08-06-2007 5:26 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by crashfrog
08-06-2007 4:38 PM


crashfrog writes:
So an argument that we're somehow insulated from - separate from - reality is probably a non-starter. We're able to perceive reality because we're in reality. Where else would we be?
It seems to me that reality is what we perceive it to be with the senses that we have acquired. Science has already shown us that how we perceive things with basic senses does not represent the basic reality as seen by modern science. As I said, in looking at my desk I would never perceive that the reality is that it is really nothing of nothing but dimensionless, (or at least near dimensionless particles) and empty space.
However even science is in the final analysis still dependent on our senses in addition to our wisdom.
crashfrog writes:
We do have such senses, thanks to technology, and we have used them to see other worlds out there - the world of the atom, for instance, or the enormous universe that we inhabit.
What other senses have we used? We have certainly been able to enhance our senses with things like telescopes but we still can't see or touch dark matter for example.
crashfrog writes:
Is that faith? To change one's mind at the slightest indication that one is wrong? Science is highly distrustful of theory, of model - even of observation, because we know people can fabricate claims of observation. I don't see that there could possibly be any endeavor so faithless as science, where long-cherished belief is abandoned at the slightest evidentiary wrinkle.
One of the great strengths of science is that it does change with new discoveries. Science though requires faith that our perception of things is the only way that those same things can be perceived and thus represent the only reality that there is.

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by crashfrog, posted 08-06-2007 4:38 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by crashfrog, posted 08-06-2007 6:04 PM GDR has replied
 Message 18 by anastasia, posted 08-07-2007 1:20 PM GDR has replied
 Message 49 by DominionSeraph, posted 09-08-2007 8:51 PM GDR has replied

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


Message 7 of 61 (414861)
08-06-2007 5:45 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by Percy
08-06-2007 4:41 PM


Percy writes:
There's a good reason you don't feel comfortable treating science as a fundamental truth. It's because science is not a fundamental truth. Science is a way of finding out things about the universe that have a good chance of being true.
Maybe the best way of putting is by asking the question: do the underlying assumptions of science represent reality.
Percy writes:
Relativity says there's no such thing as absolute velocity.
Exactly my point. We can only say that the we perceive the world to be 14 or so billion years old, but it we lived in another galaxy we might very well perceive the universe as being much older or much younger depending on our velocity compared to ourselves. In the end there is no absolute answer as to how old the universe is.
Percy writes:
What we perceive with our senses is the very definition of reality.
How do we know that? Our senses allow us to perceive our existence but if we had different senses would we perceive a very different world?
One of the things that got me thinking about this is the story of Oscar the cat in the New England Journal of Medicine.
http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/357/4/328
This cat knows when someone is about to die. It seems to me that this cat has some sense that we don't know about that enables it to sense when a person is near death. What reality is this cat perceiving that we know nothing about?

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Percy, posted 08-06-2007 4:41 PM Percy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by Doddy, posted 08-06-2007 10:03 PM GDR has replied

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


Message 8 of 61 (414863)
08-06-2007 5:58 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Chiroptera
08-06-2007 5:27 PM


Chiroptera writes:
How is this different in a non-scientific context? All anyone knows about the world is what they perceive through their senses. How science proceeds is really no different than the way you avoid bumping your "knee" into the "coffee table" regardless what a knee really is, what a coffee table is, and what it means to bump one into the other. But you've recognized certain patterns in your sensory perception of the world, and you have a model into which to fit those patterns that allow you to predict that if you "knee" bumps into the "coffee table" you will have an unpleasant experience. Pretty much the same as what a scientist does.
Don't get me wrong. Scientists have done an incredible job of discovering basic truths of the universe that our in accordance with our perception of things.
On the other hand you hear leading scientists saying things like time and even distance are illusions and that consciousness is a (or even the) fundamental constituency of the universe. How are we to take that and what does it mean for our perception of things?

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Chiroptera, posted 08-06-2007 5:27 PM Chiroptera has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by Chiroptera, posted 08-06-2007 6:12 PM GDR has not replied

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


Message 11 of 61 (414874)
08-06-2007 7:28 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by crashfrog
08-06-2007 6:04 PM


crashfrog writes:
Consider that all physicists currently accept that both general relativity and quantum mechanics are accurate models of the universe, yet those are two models that are completely inconsistent with each other. That's two very different ways of looking at things, so clearly science makes no demand that one or another model be accepted as "the only way."
With human wisdom we interpret the world through our 5 basic senses making use of instruments that we have designed to enhance our basic senses. GR and QM are the current theories that may change dramatically with new discoveries but regardless we can only perceive things with the senses that we have.
I realize that there is no answer as we have no way of knowing if there are other ways of perceiving the universe --- or not. Scientists postulate other dimensions, other universes, dark matter, dark energy etc. If we had different senses would we be able to perceive any of those? If vision was not a part of our experience we would have no way of knowing what vision is or even be able to contemplate it. It seems to me as evidenced by Oscar the Cat that there is stuff going on that we know nothing about as we don't know what we don't know.

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by crashfrog, posted 08-06-2007 6:04 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by Doddy, posted 08-06-2007 10:10 PM GDR has replied
 Message 19 by crashfrog, posted 08-07-2007 1:58 PM GDR has replied

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


Message 15 of 61 (414922)
08-06-2007 11:32 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by Doddy
08-06-2007 10:03 PM


Doddy writes:
No, you can't conclude that from what was given in the story. What is his hit rate? Sure, he may have been present at 25 deaths, but how many deaths did he miss, and how many times did he curl up next to someone who didn't die? This information needs to be known before we can conclude an effect.
I think this is a clear case of confirmation bias, and I think the NEMJ should have pointed that out. I doubt people remember that the cat was there when the person lives, and I doubt they think of the cat if the cat wasn't there when a person dies. They only remember the hits, and forget the misses.
I first heard about this cat on the radio with one of the staff being interviewed. This staff member credited the cat with 100% accuracy.
wiki writes:
Oscar was adopted as a kitten from an animal shelter and grew up in the third-floor dementia unit at Steere House Nursing and Rehabilitation Center in Providence, Rhode Island. The unit treats people with Alzheimer's, Parkinson's disease and other illnesses, most of whom are in the end stage of their illnesses (where death is imminent) and are generally unaware of their surroundings. Steere House bills itself as a "pet friendly" facility; no fewer than six pets reside at the facility, providing comfort to the patients.[1]
After about six months, the staff noticed that Oscar, just like the doctors and nurses, would make his own rounds. Oscar would sniff and observe patients, then curl up to sleep with certain ones. What surprised the staff was that the patients with whom Oscar would sleep would generally die within two to four hours after Oscar's arrival. One of the first cases involved a patient who had a blood clot in her leg that was ice cold at the time. Oscar wrapped his body around her leg and stayed until the woman died.[2] In another instance, the doctor had made a determination of impending death based on the patient's condition, while Oscar simply walked away, causing the doctor to believe that Oscar's streak (12 at the time) had ended. However, it would be later discovered that the doctor's prognosis was simply 10 hours too early - Oscar later visited the patient, who died two hours later.
Oscar's accuracy (currently standing at more than 25 reported instances) led the staff to institute a new and unusual protocol - once he is discovered sleeping with a patient, staff will call family members to notify them of the patient's (expected) impending death.
Most of the time the patient's family has no issue with Oscar being present at the time of death; on those occasions when he is removed from the room at the family's request, he is known to pace back and forth in front of the door and meow in protest. When present, Oscar will stay by the patient until he or she takes their last earthly breath - after which Oscar will sit up, look around, then depart the room so quietly that one barely notices.
Abilities aside, what makes his "last hour" companionship more puzzling is that Oscar is described by Dr. David Dosa as "not a cat that’s friendly to [living] people."[3] One example of this was described in his NEJM article. When an elderly woman with a walker passed him by during his rounds, Oscar "[let] out a gentle hiss, a rattlesnake-like warning that [said] 'leave me alone.
Doddy writes:
More likely, it is using the senses we do know about in a way that we don't know specifically. For example, it could be smelling ketone bodies produced as tissues break-down. Seems the author of that story has a similar idea, considering how many times "sniffs the air" was mentioned.
Maybe, or maybe not.

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Doddy, posted 08-06-2007 10:03 PM Doddy has not replied

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


Message 16 of 61 (414923)
08-06-2007 11:34 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by Chiroptera
08-06-2007 10:07 PM


Chiroptera writes:
And don't forget a possible placebo effect.
I would imagine that in most cases the individual is beyond that.

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Chiroptera, posted 08-06-2007 10:07 PM Chiroptera has not replied

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


Message 17 of 61 (414924)
08-06-2007 11:38 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by Doddy
08-06-2007 10:10 PM


Doddy writes:
You're interpreting that the wrong way.
We don't know what we don't know. That is to say, that for all we know we could have a good grasp on reality, or we mightn't, but the important thing is that we don't know.
In order to know if we are missing part of the story, we need the full story. And in order to know if the full story is really full, we need the full story. We can't know.
Thus, I'd rewrite that as: "We can't know what we don't know".
I'll buy that, however I would add that what we can't know might very well have an impact on what we think we can know.

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Doddy, posted 08-06-2007 10:10 PM Doddy has not replied

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


Message 20 of 61 (415007)
08-07-2007 5:25 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by anastasia
08-07-2007 1:20 PM


anastasia writes:
There are probably more 'realities' out there, but chances are we can find 'em.
I'm not so sure but obviously that is pure conjecture.
Edited by GDR, : No reason given.

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by anastasia, posted 08-07-2007 1:20 PM anastasia has not replied

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


Message 21 of 61 (415021)
08-07-2007 6:19 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by crashfrog
08-07-2007 1:58 PM


crasfrog writes:
So the brain's capability to develop new senses is clearly considerable. Even if we did not have vision - if we only had touch or hearing - a technology that turned visible light patterns into acoustic or tactile patterns could train our brains to interpret those patterns, seamlessly, as visual information.
The article you posted the link to was fascinating. Thanks.
It seems to me that with technology we can develop ways of expanding the existing senses. The body even adapts on its own. My understanding is that people who are blind have their other senses enhanced.
Radar is another way of seeing something that we wouldn't be able to otherwise but it just uses technology to convert what it detects into a something that we can visualize.
crashfrog writes:
Oscar the Cat is a ridiculous hoax perpetrated on people who don't know how to think things through. Look, think it through:
Well it fooled the publishers of "The New England Journal of Medicine" so I figure I'm in pretty good company.
crashfrog writes:
1) The Steere Nursing Unit where Oscar lives treats only individuals in the end-stage of various fatal illnesses - so regardless of whether Oscar sleeps on them or not, most residents there are going to die fairly soon. They're already dying.
Read the articles. He is able to discern which deaths are really imminent and disregard the others.
crashfrog writes:
2) Cats like to sleep on quiet, warm spots where they won't be disturbed. People who are dying of Parkinson's or Alzheimer's are listless, generally unaware of their surroundings, unresponsive and uncommunicative, and may already be suffering from fevers or blood issues that make their skin warmer than the surroundings.
Do you really think that the cat should on this basis be able to tell the difference between somebody 2 hrs from death to someone who is 24 hrs from death. Think it through.
crashfrog writes:
3) People who are dying experience metabolic shutdowns that release certain distinct odors. Cats have an incredible sense of smell, and Oscar is invariably rewarded for his attention to a dying person, so doubtless he's been behaviorally trained to pay attention to those odors.
He started doing this on his own so he couldn't have been trained using a reward system. As for him being able to detect imminent death because of odours being given off, I'll accept that as a possible answer and that it would not be an additional sense that we don't understand. However that is just speculation like anything else.
crashfrog writes:
There's nothing spooky or magic about it. It certainly doesn't prove that cats can see into the future, or read energy flows, or do any of the other ridiculous superstitious bullshit that people have attributed to Oscar the cat.
I don't imagine that anyone has suggested that it proves anything but it is a curiosity about which we can speculate.
crashfrog writes:
Is there stuff going on that we don't know about? Sure. But the problem here isn't that we don't know what we don't know. The problem here is that you don't know what we know.
You seem to approach all subjects with the certain knowledge that there is nothing that given enough time the human mind can't discern. I happen to think that you're wrong.
Neither of us can prove our views, we don't know what we don't know, regardless of how much greater knowledge you have than I do.

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by crashfrog, posted 08-07-2007 1:58 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by Doddy, posted 08-07-2007 8:35 PM GDR has not replied
 Message 29 by crashfrog, posted 08-07-2007 10:41 PM GDR has not replied

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


Message 24 of 61 (415032)
08-07-2007 8:04 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by Archer Opteryx
08-07-2007 7:23 PM


Re: Science in the Cave
Archer writes:
This is a wise question. But it is not a scientific one.
Thanks for the post. I agree with all of it except I think that you are only partially right on it not being a scientific question. However, I agree that it is primarily philosphical.
Time is something that interests me a great deal. As was pointed out there is no universal standard of time. As a result we measure both time and distance using a standard of time that we perceive on Earth. If we were on another planet in another galaxy that is moving through space and time at a different rate than we are I assume we would come to a different conclusion as to the age of the universe. Which would be correct? Isn't that a scientific question?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Archer Opteryx, posted 08-07-2007 7:23 PM Archer Opteryx has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by jar, posted 08-07-2007 8:23 PM GDR has replied
 Message 37 by cavediver, posted 08-08-2007 3:15 PM GDR has replied

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


Message 27 of 61 (415038)
08-07-2007 8:36 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by jar
08-07-2007 8:23 PM


My minimal understanding of time is that it is basically how we perceive change and we perceive it at a rate that is dependent on velocity and the gravitaional we are in.
Another planet in another galaxy is moving a what could be a very different velocity giving its inhabitants should they exist a very different perception of time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by jar, posted 08-07-2007 8:23 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by jar, posted 08-07-2007 8:52 PM GDR has replied

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


Message 31 of 61 (415093)
08-08-2007 4:36 AM
Reply to: Message 28 by jar
08-07-2007 8:52 PM


Re: scales and measurements
jar writes:
That fact that people might use two different scales or references does not change the reality. In the case involved, the age of the Universe, all you are doing is referencing two different scales, two referents. The age of the Universe is still the same and if the correlation between the two measuring systems was known, a conversion between the two could be accomplished with ease.
But that would only give the reference between 2 points which doesn't change anything. As Percy pointed out GR tells us that there is no such thing as absolute velocity. I agree with Percy, but that being true there is also no such thing as absolute time.
When we say that the universe is 13.7 billion years old we are relating it to time as we perceive it on Earth. The rate of time as we perceive it is dependent on our velocity. I know that we know our velocity in regards to our rotation and speed around the sun but as far as I know we have no idea of the speed that our solar system or our galaxy is moving at which would presumably affect the rate at which we move through time. Even if we could measure all of the velocities of the Earth it would have to be relative to some absolute time which I think we agree doesn't exist anyway.
I suppose to a photon wearing a wrist watch the world is only 10 to the minus 43 seconds old. So, in the end I don't understand how we can definitively say that the universe is 13.7 billion years old.

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by jar, posted 08-07-2007 8:52 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by jar, posted 08-08-2007 11:28 AM GDR has replied

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


Message 34 of 61 (415140)
08-08-2007 12:43 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by jar
08-08-2007 11:28 AM


Re: scales and measurements
jar writes:
No, it is using two different references to measure the same thing. While using one set of references may give us a different number then using a second reference, the thing being measured, in this case the age of the universe, is still the same. The answer is that the age of the universe is something greater than 14.5 billion years using our reference.
Each reference might give us less or more. My point is that all of our measurements of time are made from our perspective hear on Earth. We can only say that the universe is 13.7 billion years old as measured by someone on a planet that has the same cumulative velocity of Earth. Someone on another planet with a greater accumulative velocity would presumably view the universe as being much older than we do.
I'll go back to the beginning. We use the senses and the wisdom that we have to perceive the world in a particular way from our particular vantage point on Earth.
We have no way of knowing how we might perceive our environment if we had acquired a different set of senses. Maybe there aren't other senses to be had but we don't know.
I'll repeat by the way, that I am not a YEC and am NOT trying to show how we can have a 6000 year old Earth. I also agree that this is much more philosophic than it is scientific.

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by jar, posted 08-08-2007 11:28 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by jar, posted 08-08-2007 12:57 PM GDR has replied
 Message 46 by Son Goku, posted 08-18-2007 7:09 AM GDR has replied

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


Message 38 of 61 (415169)
08-08-2007 3:19 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by jar
08-08-2007 12:57 PM


Re: scales and measurements
jar writes:
If someone uses the metric system to measure an object, while another person uses the English system, they will get two different answers. Each answer is correct related to the reference they use.
I'm not talking two different measuring systems. I'm talking about one measuring system that gives different results depending on your location in the universe. I'm just using the age of the universe as an example. From our perspective we view the universe as being 13.7 billion years old and some hypothetical being on some planet in a distant galaxy might well perceive the universe as being 20 billion years old. Both are correct from their vantage point but what is the reality?
jar writes:
We do know what we have. Knowledge of the universe is evolutionary, over time we learn more. However that has nothing to do with the reality itself.
Science truly represents reality, but it is just what WE know about reality, not the reality itself.
I agree
One scientific theory is that consciousness is a fundamental characteristic of the universe. I think this is what Penrose and Hameroff are suggesting.
This is a brief discussion on the idea that consciousness is fundamental.
This Blog has Moved to NovaSpivack.com: Is Consciousness as Fundamental as Space, Time and Energy?
What would a universe without consciousness look like or would it exist at all?
Heizenberg's Uncertainty Principle as I understand it tells us that particles don't exhibit their characteristics until they are observed or measured. If there weren't some form of consciousness, (I'm not limiting it to human consciousness) to interact with basic particles would it mean that change would cease to happen and thus time would cease to exist? (I,m not making a statement, I'm asking a question.)

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by jar, posted 08-08-2007 12:57 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by jar, posted 08-08-2007 3:31 PM GDR has not replied
 Message 42 by Archer Opteryx, posted 08-08-2007 6:16 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