Sciense is a religion by itself.

[socratus]

Quantum biology: Do weird physics effects abound in nature?

Disappearing in one place and reappearing in another.
Being in two places at once. Communicating information seemingly
faster than the speed of light.

This kind of weird behaviour is commonplace in dark, still laboratories
studying the branch of physics called quantum mechanics, but what
might it have to do with fresh flowers, migrating birds, and the smell
of rotten eggs?
Welcome to the frontier of what is called quantum biology.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-21150047
==..

' Long time ago, when the life only began generated
by the chance a molecule had arisen . . . . . .
. . . we are only descendants of these first molecules . . . . .
. . . all living beings on the Earth occurred from one
and the same ancestors on the molecular level.'
/ Book: The Character of Physical Law.
Lecture 4. By R. Feynman /

And somebody said if we give to the simplest molecule
hydrogen enough time then it will become a man
( maybe according to the law of evolution ) .
===.

[socratus]

Biology- - Evolutionary biology - - Physics- - Biophysics -
Quantum biology - Evolutionary biophysics on quantomolecular level.
( ! ? )
==.

[SpheresOfBalance]

Yes, I have seen this as a possibility. Man is simply, slowly, coming to terms with the reality of the creators accomplishments, and that as of this (slow) reverse engineering, of this truth that exists, the creator is surely invisible, all we are currently capable of seeing are the parts that our current state of minds are capable of, while the future shall continually hold more, as the creator slowly comes into focus.

This science of man, is a true attempt at the real religion of the universe, while those that can't see, and make statements as to what is, or is not, do so because they can't yet see. But this is how we have come to see, that which we have seen, thus far.

I see that eventually, we shall see with clarity, if our coveting of glittering prizes, simply elements born of stars, part of the truth, of the universal creation, that the unenlightened use as talismans of selfish power, that should actually be seen only, as tools to unravel a better understanding of the universal truth, is finally quelled, otherwise this false shallowness shall quite possibly do us in, before we ever get a clue, as to the actual sequence of creation, in it's totality, of this universal truth we all enjoy.

[Bernard]

Well expressed Spheres.

[SpheresOfBalance]

Well expressed Spheres.

Thanks, some that are similar minded, may think so, while others may not. I admit that often I don't do as good as I wish I could. But every day we grow, right?

[Bernard]

Yes, and its only that conscious effort, even when you know you are not succeeding, that matters. Every new moment we are compelled to struggle for more consciousness even if we are not very aware of it or willing to that end. Cosciousness is the driver not adaptation, which is a by product. The idea is bad that consciousness is a result of evolution rather than its fuel.

[rantal]

Science is not a religion, having a different domain, it is, however, a faith, since it depends upon some unprovable assumptions

all the best, rantal

[SpheresOfBalance]

Science is not a religion, having a different domain, it is, however, a faith, since it depends upon some unprovable assumptions

all the best, rantal

I see that it's all semantics, if you look at the history of science you see many instances of 'guesswork' that sometimes has and has not been correct. Many things are initially taken on 'faith' and some still cannot be proven. I see that some of the proofs, as thought to be verified true empirically, could actually be due to other forces, that just so happen, fit the mathematical model, or actually, more correctly, that the mathematical model was created based upon an idea, in someones head, and that the empirical evidence, while seemingly verifying the original idea, of a particular force, could just be seemingly so, and that in fact is actually attributed to a different force, yet not understood, or just not considered.

At the same time, in the other camp, while you and I both think that humans talking to a god is unbelievable, who is to actually say? How could either of us know, with absolute certainty, that they had not spoken to a god. So your argument, while pretty much informed from the current scientific community, can be seen as grossly misinformed when it comes to the actual specific truths, and your certain knowledge of them, from the religious community, as they were supposed to have happened so many years ago, such that one could not possibly know for sure whether or not they bear any truth.

A scientific experiment of the past can be duplicated at any time with certain results as long as one follows the exact steps of the first, but how can one possibly recreate a conversation with a god, as the god would have to agree to the proposal. And while you may think that my proposition is ridiculous, as do I, it's still the fact. One cannot know for certain of such things from the past. It is impossible, unless the god reappears and talks to you, and unfortunately him/it not doing so, does not prove, with certainty, otherwise.

If you choose to use the scientific method to prove there is no god, then you also must use it to prove there is a god.

I see that science is a religion of sorts, just that a better formulated effort is utilized along the way, so as to attempt to ensure, as much accuracy as possible. While Religion is supposed to attest to the truth of the universe, so is science. They are both trying to do the same thing, it's just that throughout history, they've tried to accomplish this, with a varying degree of, quite different, ethics.

[rantal]

Science is not a religion, having a different domain, it is, however, a faith, since it depends upon some unprovable assumptions

all the best, rantal

I see that it's all semantics, if you look at the history of science you see many instances of 'guesswork' that sometimes has and has not been correct. Many things are initially taken on 'faith' and some still cannot be proven. I see that some of the proofs, as thought to be verified true empirically, could actually be due to other forces, that just so happen, fit the mathematical model, or actually, more correctly, that the mathematical model was created based upon an idea, in someones head, and that the empirical evidence, while seemingly verifying the original idea, of a particular force, could just be seemingly so, and that in fact is actually attributed to a different force, yet not understood, or just not considered.

Is it all semantics? Not really, there are very real differences between science and any religion
1. Science depends upon an objective perspective, that is not to say that it is necessarily always objective but rather that it adopts a perspective that is detached from that which observes
2. Science demands repeatablility as a criteria of acceptance
3. Science, as well as seeking to verify theory empirically also seeks to refute it
4. Science abandons old theories in favour of something better

These are real substantial not semantic differences, which render it impossible to classify science as a religion. Science is however a faith it even has a creation myth and here it is.

There is a theory, called the cosmological standard model, this mathematical theory attempts to explain the origin of the universe from the first moments of the big bang

The maths predicts

1. 1. Non uniform heat distribution

However heat distribution throughout the universe is very uniform in order to account for this counter-factual observation an ad hoc modification of the theory was developed, inflation, this suggested that initially the universe expanded slowly till the heat became uniform after which it underwent a period of immense and rapid inflation however there is no strong evidence of such inflation nor a theoretical explanation why it should have occurred

2. Stars velocity should decrease the farther out their orbit is from galactic central point, however, stars retain almost uniform velocity regardless of orbital radius. To accommodate this scientists postulated the existence of dark matter, a convenient neo-mystical substance that contributes to the mass of the universe but does not interact with matter in any other way. Not only that but in order to make the model work for every kg of real matter there must be 5kg of mystical or dark matter. Despite over 5 years of experiments attempting to establish the existence of dark matter none has been detected. Nor is there any theoretical understanding of what such matter could consist of

3. Universe should slow expansion but is increasing its rate of expansion, to accommodate this, laughably, scientists have evoked another fanciful explanation: Dark energy, and again there is no experimental evidence or theoretical understanding of what such energy might be for this further irrational and ad hoc postulation.

4. Finally, galaxies have been observed moving in a manner that the Standard Model rules out, the scientists explanation? Dark Flow necessitating the idea of a universe outside the universe

Now it may be that some still believe the cosmologists explanation for the origin of the universe but to do so requires a huge leap of faith.

Scientists may not all be religious but many are true believers!




At the same time, in the other camp, while you and I both think that humans talking to a god is unbelievable, who is to actually say? How could either of us know, with absolute certainty, that they had not spoken to a god.

Please do not assume what I hold to be unbelievable

So your argument, while pretty much informed from the current scientific community, can be seen as grossly misinformed when it comes to the actual specific truths, and your certain knowledge of them, from the religious community, as they were supposed to have happened so many years ago, such that one could not possibly know for sure whether or not they bear any truth.

A scientific experiment of the past can be duplicated at any time with certain results as long as one follows the exact steps of the first, but how can one possibly recreate a conversation with a god, as the god would have to agree to the proposal. And while you may think that my proposition is ridiculous, as do I, it's still the fact. One cannot know for certain of such things from the past. It is impossible, unless the god reappears and talks to you, and unfortunately him/it not doing so, does not prove, with certainty, otherwise.

If you choose to use the scientific method to prove there is no god, then you also must use it to prove there is a god.

I see that science is a religion of sorts, just that a better formulated effort is utilized along the way, so as to attempt to ensure, as much accuracy as possible. While Religion is supposed to attest to the truth of the universe, so is science. They are both trying to do the same thing, it's just that throughout history, they've tried to accomplish this, with a varying degree of, quite different, ethics.

[SpheresOfBalance]

Science is not a religion, having a different domain, it is, however, a faith, since it depends upon some unprovable assumptions

all the best, rantal

I see that it's all semantics, if you look at the history of science you see many instances of 'guesswork' that sometimes has and has not been correct. Many things are initially taken on 'faith' and some still cannot be proven. I see that some of the proofs, as thought to be verified true empirically, could actually be due to other forces, that just so happen, fit the mathematical model, or actually, more correctly, that the mathematical model was created based upon an idea, in someones head, and that the empirical evidence, while seemingly verifying the original idea, of a particular force, could just be seemingly so, and that in fact is actually attributed to a different force, yet not understood, or just not considered.

Is it all semantics? Not really, there are very real differences between science and any religion
1. Science depends upon an objective perspective, that is not to say that it is necessarily always objective but rather that it adopts a perspective that is detached from that which observes
2. Science demands repeatablility as a criteria of acceptance
3. Science, as well as seeking to verify theory empirically also seeks to refute it
4. Science abandons old theories in favour of something better

These are real substantial not semantic differences, which render it impossible to classify science as a religion. Science is however a faith it even has a creation myth and here it is.

There is a theory, called the cosmological standard model, this mathematical theory attempts to explain the origin of the universe from the first moments of the big bang

The maths predicts

1. 1. Non uniform heat distribution

However heat distribution throughout the universe is very uniform in order to account for this counter-factual observation an ad hoc modification of the theory was developed, inflation, this suggested that initially the universe expanded slowly till the heat became uniform after which it underwent a period of immense and rapid inflation however there is no strong evidence of such inflation nor a theoretical explanation why it should have occurred

2. Stars velocity should decrease the farther out their orbit is from galactic central point, however, stars retain almost uniform velocity regardless of orbital radius. To accommodate this scientists postulated the existence of dark matter, a convenient neo-mystical substance that contributes to the mass of the universe but does not interact with matter in any other way. Not only that but in order to make the model work for every kg of real matter there must be 5kg of mystical or dark matter. Despite over 5 years of experiments attempting to establish the existence of dark matter none has been detected. Nor is there any theoretical understanding of what such matter could consist of

3. Universe should slow expansion but is increasing its rate of expansion, to accommodate this, laughably, scientists have evoked another fanciful explanation: Dark energy, and again there is no experimental evidence or theoretical understanding of what such energy might be for this further irrational and ad hoc postulation.

4. Finally, galaxies have been observed moving in a manner that the Standard Model rules out, the scientists explanation? Dark Flow necessitating the idea of a universe outside the universe

Now it may be that some still believe the cosmologists explanation for the origin of the universe but to do so requires a huge leap of faith.

Scientists may not all be religious but many are true believers!




At the same time, in the other camp, while you and I both, may think that humans talking to a god is unbelievable, who is to actually say? How could either of us know, with absolute certainty, that they had not spoken to a god.

Please do not assume what I hold to be unbelievable

So your argument, while pretty much informed from the current scientific community, can be seen as grossly misinformed when it comes to the actual specific truths, and your certain knowledge of them, from the religious community, as they were supposed to have happened so many years ago, such that one could not possibly know for sure whether or not they bear any truth.

A scientific experiment of the past can be duplicated at any time with certain results as long as one follows the exact steps of the first, but how can one possibly recreate a conversation with a god, as the god would have to agree to the proposal. And while you may think that my proposition is ridiculous, as do I, it's still the fact. One cannot know for certain of such things from the past. It is impossible, unless the god reappears and talks to you, and unfortunately him/it not doing so, does not prove, with certainty, otherwise.

If you choose to use the scientific method to prove there is no god, then you also must use it to prove there is a god.

I see that science is a religion of sorts, just that a better formulated effort is utilized along the way, so as to attempt to ensure, as much accuracy as possible. While Religion is supposed to attest to the truth of the universe, so is science. They are both trying to do the same thing, it's just that throughout history, they've tried to accomplish this, with a varying degree of, quite different, ethics.

First a lot of what you said above is not necessarily true, but that's beside the point, the topic is "Science is a religion by itself" NOT "Religion is a science by itself" It would seem that you're trying to prove that religion is not a science. If so I would agree. But still I say that Science is a religion, of sorts. Religion began as a means to make sense of mans universe and Science did as well. Of course Science seems to be the more accurate method to me.

[rantal]

First a lot of what you said above is not necessarily true, but that's beside the point, the topic is "Science is a religion by itself" NOT "Religion is a science by itself" It would seem that you're trying to prove that religion is not a science. If so I would agree. But still I say that Science is a religion, of sorts. Religion began as a means to make sense of mans universe and Science did as well. Of course Science seems to be the more accurate method to me.

Contrary to what you suggest I am not trying to show that religeon is a science by itself and nothing that I have said implies that.

What I have shown is that science is not a religeon for the following reasons

1. Science depends upon an objective perspective, that is not to say that it is necessarily always objective but rather that it adopts a perspective that is detached from that which observes
2. Science demands repeatablility as a criteria of acceptance
3. Science, as well as seeking to verify theory empirically also seeks to refute it
4. Science abandons old theories in favour of something better

These I take to be sufficient to differentiate science from religeon

Yes, both science and religeon and philosophy for that matter start in a similar vein but that is not sufficient to show that science is a religeon

all the best, rantal

[SpheresOfBalance]

First a lot of what you said above is not necessarily true, but that's beside the point, the topic is "Science is a religion by itself" NOT "Religion is a science by itself" It would seem that you're trying to prove that religion is not a science. If so I would agree. But still I say that Science is a religion, of sorts. Religion began as a means to make sense of mans universe and Science did as well. Of course Science seems to be the more accurate method to me.

Contrary to what you suggest I am not trying to show that religeon is a science by itself and nothing that I have said implies that.
Quite the contrary, you are saying: 'science has this, while religion does not,' you're not talking about what 'religion has that science does not.'


What I have shown is that science is not a religeon for the following reasons

1. Science depends upon an objective perspective, that is not to say that it is necessarily always objective but rather that it adopts a perspective that is detached from that which observes
2. Science demands repeatablility as a criteria of acceptance
3. Science, as well as seeking to verify theory empirically also seeks to refute it
4. Science abandons old theories in favour of something better

These I take to be sufficient to differentiate science from religeon

Yes, both science and religeon and philosophy for that matter start in a similar vein but that is not sufficient to show that science is a religeon

all the best, rantal

You're speaking of methodologies to ensure accuracy, I'm speaking of purpose (aim)/application of findings! Science is a Religion of sorts, but Religion is not a Science!

[rantal]

Yes, the diferences in methodologies are sufficient to show that science is not a religeon but I could have pointed out other diferences, domain for example or your own aim. Science offers no advice on how to live, religions do, in that they are different in aim

all the best, rantal

[Cerveny]

The nice example how the Science becomes a belief is Theory of relativity. Scientists are hopelessly trying to explain the “Dark matter” phenomena in frame (by tools) of GTR. Their blind belief in A.E. does not allow them to consider the problem is just in concept of gravity. (Moving matter apparently generates some kind of “dual” gravity, related with inertial motion phenomena, analogically to the movement of electric charge…)

Not to forget: the same situation is in quantizing of gravity

[rantal]

The nice example how the Science becomes a belief is Theory of relativity. Scientists are hopelessly trying to explain the “Dark matter” phenomena in frame (by tools) of GTR. Their blind belief in A.E. does not allow them to consider the problem is just in concept of gravity. (Moving matter apparently generates some kind of “dual” gravity, related with inertial motion phenomena, analogically to the movement of electric charge…)

Not to forget: the same situation is in quantizing of gravity

As you so rightly say sceince is a belief and even more that it requires a leap of fatih as I have demonstrated above. We must not however confuse makin a leap of faith with being a religeon, for whilst that may be a necessary condition for a religeon it is not a sufficient one

all the best, rantal