Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,889 Year: 4,146/9,624 Month: 1,017/974 Week: 344/286 Day: 0/65 Hour: 0/0


EvC Forum ⇒ Science Forums ⇒ Is It Science? ⇒

Does Science Truly Represent Reality?

Thread ▼ Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Does Science Truly Represent Reality?
jar
Member (Idle past 422 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004

Normal Thread Display
Message 25 of 61 (415034)
08-07-2007 8:23 PM 		Reply to: Message 24 by GDR
08-07-2007 8:04 PM

Re: Science in the Cave
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.
​
Huh?
​
Which is correct, metric or English measurements?
​
Aslan is not a Tame Lion
This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by GDR, posted 08-07-2007 8:04 PM GDR has replied
Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by GDR, posted 08-07-2007 8:36 PM jar has replied
  
jar
Member (Idle past 422 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004

Normal Thread Display
Message 28 of 61 (415039)
08-07-2007 8:52 PM 		Reply to: Message 27 by GDR
08-07-2007 8:36 PM

scales and measurements
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.
​
Aslan is not a Tame Lion
This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by GDR, posted 08-07-2007 8:36 PM GDR has replied
Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by GDR, posted 08-08-2007 4:36 AM jar has replied
  
jar
Member (Idle past 422 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004

Normal Thread Display
Message 33 of 61 (415123)
08-08-2007 11:28 AM 		Reply to: Message 31 by GDR
08-08-2007 4:36 AM

Re: scales and measurements
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.
​
I suppose to a photon wearing a wrist watch the world is only 10 to the minus 43 seconds old.
​
The Photons life is from the moment it is created. It's universe is a statement that seems to have no meaning.
​
Aslan is not a Tame Lion
This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by GDR, posted 08-08-2007 4:36 AM GDR has replied
Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by GDR, posted 08-08-2007 12:43 PM jar has replied
  
jar
Member (Idle past 422 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004

Normal Thread Display
Message 35 of 61 (415145)
08-08-2007 12:57 PM 		Reply to: Message 34 by GDR
08-08-2007 12:43 PM

Re: scales and measurements
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.
​
No, not true.
​
You are mistaking the measuring system and the thing being measured.
​
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.
​
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.
​
Irrelevant.
​
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.
​
Aslan is not a Tame Lion
This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by GDR, posted 08-08-2007 12:43 PM GDR has replied
Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by GDR, posted 08-08-2007 3:19 PM jar has replied
  
jar
Member (Idle past 422 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004

Normal Thread Display
Message 39 of 61 (415172)
08-08-2007 3:31 PM 		Reply to: Message 38 by GDR
08-08-2007 3:19 PM

Re: scales and measurements
Both are correct from their vantage point but what is the reality?
​
That the universe is as old as they perceive based on their reference.
​
What would a universe without consciousness look like or would it exist at all?
​
Sorry but that seems to be simply a meaningless question.
​
Aslan is not a Tame Lion
This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by GDR, posted 08-08-2007 3:19 PM GDR has not replied
  
jar
Member (Idle past 422 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004

Normal Thread Display
Message 44 of 61 (415229)
08-08-2007 9:11 PM 		Reply to: Message 43 by Doddy
08-08-2007 8:53 PM

Re: Science in the Cave
The problem is, it also poses no problem for it not existing.
​
How is that a problem?
​
Aslan is not a Tame Lion
This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by Doddy, posted 08-08-2007 8:53 PM Doddy has replied
Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by Doddy, posted 08-08-2007 10:33 PM jar has not replied
  
jar
Member (Idle past 422 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004

Normal Thread Display
Message 51 of 61 (420734)
09-09-2007 10:46 AM 		Reply to: Message 50 by GDR
09-09-2007 10:33 AM

perception vs reality.
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.
​
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
This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by GDR, posted 09-09-2007 10:33 AM GDR has replied
Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by GDR, posted 09-09-2007 11:10 AM jar has replied
  
jar
Member (Idle past 422 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004

Normal Thread Display
Message 54 of 61 (420796)
09-09-2007 3:38 PM 		Reply to: Message 52 by GDR
09-09-2007 11:10 AM

Re: perception vs reality.
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
This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by GDR, posted 09-09-2007 11:10 AM GDR has not replied
  
Date format: mm-dd-yyyy
Timezone: ET (US)
  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024