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.
™ Version 4.2
