Does Science Truly Represent Reality?

All observers however would agree on the spacetime interval between now and the big bang.
If you draw two points on a sheet of paper, depending on what coordinate systems you use the points will have different numerical values. However all coordinates systems agree on the actual distance. It's the same in relativity, people can use different "time" coordinates, but they'll still get the same spacetime distance.

No, theories that come from the imagination based on speculation have nothing to do with science.If the earth is 4.5 billions years old, then that means it sat around vacant for a much longer time than it's been inhabited. So why is that? Scientists ignore that question because the whole goal of secular scientists is to deny God. So their theories pose many more questions than answers.Apes and monkeys don't turn into humans in reality nor do they produce human descendants in reality either. So the theory of evolution is as ludicrous and imaginary as claiming that King Kong once ruled the world.And neither is finding bones in the dirt, rocks, or desert, and imagining what they can be science any more than a child finding bones in the dirt and exclaiming; "Mommy, this bone looks like an apeman!"And neither is looking at an iceberg and claiming that the whole world was once convered in ice, science any more than imagining that the earth was once covered in lava by looking at what volcanos can do to the earth around them.So no, scientific theories are just that; theories. And since a theory is an imaginary scenario that can't be proven, only a "what if" just like science fiction premises, then theories aren't science.Edited by Refpunk, : No reason given.Edited by Admin, : No reason given.

Isn't that a bit like comparing a car travelling at 60 mph for 1 hr to a car travelling at 30 mph for two hours? Both cars have gone 60 miles, but the time component is still different.Also if I go back to the idea of a photon of light. From its perspective time doesn't exist or is zero. Again from its perspective space or distance don't exist either as 0 x c is still zero.I realize that you are very highly qualified in this area and I am the layman's layman so I hope I'm not sounding argumentative. This whole discussion is probably more philosophical than it is scientific.

---

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

No it doesn't. You've missed the relevance of relevance.Things that are outside the realm of human science because they can neither be directly nor indirectly detected are meaningless to me, as they can't affect me. Regardless of their actual status, they effectively don't exist. They're irrelevant. And the fact that your response to the concept of an existent but non-affecting object will be inappropriate as your experiential sample of existent objects necessarily doesn't include any non-affecting objects (if it doesn't affect you, you can't experience it), disbelief is warranted regardless of existential status.Remember, having the truth is not in itself a good thing. And human science being unable to determine the existence of things whose existence is irrelevant to humans, isn't exactly relevant to humans. It matters not if a tool fails to accomplish a meaningless task.Edited by DominionSeraph, : No reason given.Edited by DominionSeraph, : No reason given.

How do you determine what is outside the realm of human science. Let's consider gravity. It certainly has an affect on us and we know a great deal about how to measure and use it but we don't know what it is but science keeps looking for gravitons or whatever else might be fundamental to it. Science keeps trying to learn about dark matter and dark energy.All I'm saying is that we perceive the world through 5 basic senses. We can augment those senses but in the end the universe is how we perceive it. Maybe if we had different senses we would perceive dark matter and what we call visible matter would be unknown to us. That would give us an entirely different perception of the universe. Dark matter has gravitational properties so we can't say that it doesn't affect us. Unless I have things all wrong, if it wasn't for dark matter helping to hold the universe in balance we couldn't exist.I know that guys like Roger Penrose suggest that consciousness is the fundamental property of the universe as I understand it.
Welcome | Stuart Hameroff, MD
I'm just suggesting that there is may well be other ways of perceiving the universe that at this point we know nothing about. Maybe in the future we will. Incidentally, in one way radar gives us a different way of perceiving things to give one example of how we have already done that. Isn't science, (and for that matter phiosophy and theology), all about trying to find out as much truth as we can. How are we to determine what truth is irrelevant?

---

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

Is that really the case?How we perceive the Universe is not necessarily "how the universe is."Are you confusing the Map for the Territory?The Universe is as it is, regardless of our perceptions or knowledge.Science represents what we can know and test related to reality. It is a method of map making that then must be tested against the actual territory. The value is that Science actually gives us an independant method of testing the Map against the Territory, a method that can be used by anyone regardless of their personal bias.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Actually you are agreeing with the point I was trying to make. The problem was in how I said it.

---

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

Through examination of how they've been defined.
If you define something as being outside the range of human perception, you've limited its sphere of influence to a range that doesn't include humans, which puts it outside of human science and relevancy. We can observe the effects of gravity. As such, it is within the range of perceptability. Unless they affect us, they're irrelevant. Hmmmm... nobody seems to be trying very hard to find out what the weight of my colon was 39 weeks ago to the minute. I wonder why that is.I suggest you examine why some truths matter more than others. By examining our valuation system.
If something doesn't meet our criteria to be valued, it is valueless.

Yes BUT ...What we can test and verify can be moved into the "Known" or "Strongly Confirmed" or "Confidence Level Files". What we cannot test needs to go into the "Unknown File" and we should not attach any additional labels to it other than unknown.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

I'll use an example. Scientists are very interested in theorizing about dark matter. We can observe its gravitational affects but we can't perceive it. Maybe, if it does exist, and we had a different type of sense, we would be able to perceive it. Science in this case is very interested in finding something we can't perceive.

---

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

Science represents that aspect of reality that can be empirically verified.It is not "a form of faith", then, as you say. Faith is based on premises that are not, by their nature, empirically derived. Faith does expect its premises to correspond with, and amplify, those aspects of reality we know empirically. It does not ask that its own premises demonstrate themselves by such means.Faith is grounded in symbol. Symbols manifest intuitive knowledge. It thus has more in common with art than science. Science is grounded in literal interpretations of sensory data. It manifests factual knowledge.Reality may be expressed in both literal (fact-based) and metaphorical (symbol-based) forms. Both modes of expression have their value. Each mode has its strengths and its limitations.Reality remains real regardless of the mode of expression we use.____Edited by Archer Opterix, : brev.Edited by Archer Opterix, : html.

Are we really sure that what we can demonstrate empirically actually represents reality? we always talk about our measurement of time and space as representing reality but here is a quote from Discovery magazine. Here is the link: http://discovermagazine.com/2000/dec/coverIf time and space don't represent reality then how can we have faith that anything we know empirically does? (I once again add the disclaimer that I am not trying to make a case for a young earth. I am not YEC.)Edited by GDR, : No reason given.

---

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

The universe is chaos, Science is the human understanding of the chaos. We will never fully understand everything because it is simply beyond our understanding, time is one of these things. Time is the human perception of change. The human mind is finite, the universe is infinite, Time is a human attempt to finite(count) the infinite.

Doesn't change the fact that only things which affect you are relevant.

Reality is irrelevant.