The Limits of Science

[Bill Wiltrack]

.








.......................................................................








We set sail on this new sea because there is new knowledge to be gained and new rights to be won and they must be won and used for the progress of all people. For space science, like nuclear science and technology, has no conscience of its own. Whether it will become a force for good or ill depends on man and only if the United States occupies a position of preeminence can we help decide whether this new ocean will be a sea of peace or a new terrifying theater of war.

~~~ John F. Kennedy ~~~

Address at Rice University in Houston, 9/12/62





.

[Ginkgo]

You are confusing some things said though.
Causation (everything has a cause) is a basic element of todays science. This is what science does: looking for causes. (and formulating prediction models based on these causes)
However the First Cause does not have a cause, by definition.
I do not know what that first cause might be, I just asked you the obvious: If you think it is the Big Bang, then do you have evidence to support your claim?

I see two issues here.

Firstly, you are right about your definition of science. However, there is no logical necessity when it comes to cause and effect. This can be significant when we try to trace causation back to a first cause.

Secondly, I think most scientists would say that the available evidence at the moment points to a Big Bang.

[skakos]

You are confusing some things said though.
Causation (everything has a cause) is a basic element of todays science. This is what science does: looking for causes. (and formulating prediction models based on these causes)
However the First Cause does not have a cause, by definition.
I do not know what that first cause might be, I just asked you the obvious: If you think it is the Big Bang, then do you have evidence to support your claim?

I see two issues here.

Firstly, you are right about your definition of science. However, there is no logical necessity when it comes to cause and effect. This can be significant when we try to trace causation back to a first cause.

Secondly, I think most scientists would say that the available evidence at the moment points to a Big Bang.

Indeed there is no necessity for the chain of causes to continue back to the beginning. But if causation does not apply, then the "room" for God is even more easily to walk...

Allowing such "gaps" in the "logical" structure of the world (what kind of "logic" is there when something occurs just... because?!?) allows room for extremely irrational thoughts. I am not sure scientists want to go there...

[Arising_uk]

I have no dogmas. I try to search for the truth free of them.
That is why I believe that both possibilities with the Universe having a First Cause or the Universe being eternal are plausible.

You are confusing some things said though.
Causation (everything has a cause) is a basic element of todays science. This is what science does: looking for causes. (and formulating prediction models based on these causes)
However the First Cause does not have a cause, by definition.
I do not know what that first cause might be, I just asked you the obvious: If you think it is the Big Bang, then do you have evidence to support your claim?

Do you have evidence that a 'God' caused it? Or even direct evidence for the existence of such an 'entity'?

Still, you miss my point and that is, if you can have a first cause then by your definition there is no need to explain the 'cause' of a 'first cause' so no need to explain the 'big bang' and lots of evidence, i.e. the CMB, the expansion of the galaxies, etc, to support it being enough of an explanation to explain what we see around us. So no need for a 'God' at all.

[Kuznetzova]

Do you really think this is even close to being related to the topic? I am asking how meaningful (actually "complicated meaningful and encoded", but let's stick to the simple version for now) information can be generated through a random process

DNA was not originally formed from a random process. And you know what? Those rocks on Irish coast were not generated by a "random process" either. There are perfectly-physical processes in the universe that generate order through self-organization. They happen because of known laws, not because of spirits or divine designers. DNA is no exception. There was an order-creating chemical processes (probably involved in the auto-catalysis of RNA) that eventually gave rise to DNA. Very recent research has shown us that RNA has auto-catalytic capacities.

You are operating on a dichotomy that has been indoctrinated into your worldview by creationist literature. The false dichotomy that you must realize is that any ordered pattern in the universe was

(1) created by random chance.
(2) or specifically designed by a intelligent spirit being.

This is a false dichotomy. There are order-forming processes in nature, and these things arise by known laws. These laws are understood in a branch called Statistical Physics.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-organization
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molecular_self-assembly
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autocatalysis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistical_physics

Liquids and gasses will stir amongst themselves in a way that is given by the Navier-Stokes equations. Liquids form elaborate vortices at all scales. And these micro-vortices give rise to chaotic turbulence. At no point does a student of fluid dynamics hear that these intricate fractal patterns are the result of "water spirits" or "liquid fairies". They happen based on well-understood principles of matter.

[skakos]

I have no dogmas. I try to search for the truth free of them.
That is why I believe that both possibilities with the Universe having a First Cause or the Universe being eternal are plausible.

You are confusing some things said though.
Causation (everything has a cause) is a basic element of todays science. This is what science does: looking for causes. (and formulating prediction models based on these causes)
However the First Cause does not have a cause, by definition.
I do not know what that first cause might be, I just asked you the obvious: If you think it is the Big Bang, then do you have evidence to support your claim?

Do you have evidence that a 'God' caused it? Or even direct evidence for the existence of such an 'entity'?

Still, you miss my point and that is, if you can have a first cause then by your definition there is no need to explain the 'cause' of a 'first cause' so no need to explain the 'big bang' and lots of evidence, i.e. the CMB, the expansion of the galaxies, etc, to support it being enough of an explanation to explain what we see around us. So no need for a 'God' at all.

If the word "God" distracts you, then use another word. The name of the First Cause is not the point.
The point is that we should research whether such a cause exists. And yes, as you said it could be the Big Bang or anything else.
What is important is to not be dogmatic so as to deny the very possibility if this solution beforehand...

[skakos]

Do you really think this is even close to being related to the topic? I am asking how meaningful (actually "complicated meaningful and encoded", but let's stick to the simple version for now) information can be generated through a random process

DNA was not originally formed from a random process. And you know what? Those rocks on Irish coast were not generated by a "random process" either. There are perfectly-physical processes in the universe that generate order through self-organization. They happen because of known laws, not because of spirits or divine designers. DNA is no exception. There was an order-creating chemical processes (probably involved in the auto-catalysis of RNA) that eventually gave rise to DNA. Very recent research has shown us that RNA has auto-catalytic capacities.

You are operating on a dichotomy that has been indoctrinated into your worldview by creationist literature. The false dichotomy that you must realize is that any ordered pattern in the universe was

(1) created by random chance.
(2) or specifically designed by a intelligent spirit being.

This is a false dichotomy. There are order-forming processes in nature, and these things arise by known laws. These laws are understood in a branch called Statistical Physics.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-organization
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molecular_self-assembly
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autocatalysis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistical_physics

Liquids and gasses will stir amongst themselves in a way that is given by the Navier-Stokes equations. Liquids form elaborate vortices at all scales. And these micro-vortices give rise to chaotic turbulence. At no point does a student of fluid dynamics hear that these intricate fractal patterns are the result of "water spirits" or "liquid fairies". They happen based on well-understood principles of matter.

I see your point: Nothing is "random" because there are laws which dictate everything.
But you surely can tell the difference between "I let a physical system evolve through natural laws alone" and "I control how a physical system will evolve myself". If you do not wish to call the first "random" then be my guest. (anyway the very existence of "random" can be the theme of a separate thread)

Let me rephrase the question/ problem then: If you had a physical system, would you trust it to generate new valid and valuable information by leaving it to evolve alone? For example if you were a computer programmer, would you trust the noise in the internet cables - which surely follow physical laws - to create new information that you could intelligently use?

[Kuznetzova]

Let me rephrase the question/ problem then: If you had a physical system, would you trust it to generate new valid and valuable information by leaving it to evolve alone? For example if you were a computer programmer, would you trust the noise in the internet cables - which surely follow physical laws - to create new information that you could intelligently use?

Sorry skakos, I am also fully aware of this argument from Creationist literature. You are not going to have a good day with me

It is totally true that if you randomly perturb the source code of any given database program. There is a near 99.99999% of those "mutations" will cause a deleterious (often fatal) crash of the software. Yes that's true. And theories of natural selection require that beneficial mutations creep in. In the case of computer source code, it seems all mutations are bad mutations.

Unfortunately the analogy between DNA and source code is flawed. Here is why it is flawed: database software does not contain a recipe to make a copy of itself.

(What I just typed there destroys the creationist argument fully. But I will continue to destroy it a little more - just for sport.)

All the organisms outside of your window, the trees, flowers, insects, birds. Their DNA is a recipe to make a copy of themselves in their progeny. Furthermore, those species outside there have demonstrated in real time, their capacity to make copies of themselves while under the duress of noisy mutations.

Rest assured, that if the source code of a database program was forced to make a copy of itself or go extinct, while placed under the duress of noisy mutations, that population of database programs will undergo natural selection. I profess a guarantee to you that this will happen.

[jinx]

Atheists dont seem to care to much about logic and thinking (ie empirical data) but there is decline in fitness from germ line cell mutations (multiple literatures dating back 80 years) + John Sanford covers it in his book 'Genetic entropy'. But if someone just wants to believe then alas its not about rational thought, just religion ('evolution').

[Hjarloprillar]

Science is a great tool. But can science ("exact science" to be exact) investigate everything? Can it investigate things which cannot be replicated in a laboratory? Can it investigate things which cannot be measured? Can it investigate things which happen only once? What do you think are limits of Science?

the limits of science. good post
Technically everything only happens once.
no matter how we are accurate Every act is original and happens one time.
does the glass fall to floor. gravity IS/
fall to floor EVERY time gravity IS
Science is what w have. there is no other method that works

how do we know this.. we get on planes made by science and trust our lives to its method.
that alone says everything.
we are self serving we dont risk life on a 'could be'

[Hjarloprillar]

.








.......................................................................








We set sail on this new sea because there is new knowledge to be gained and new rights to be won and they must be won and used for the progress of all people. For space science, like nuclear science and technology, has no conscience of its own. Whether it will become a force for good or ill depends on man and only if the United States occupies a position of preeminence can we help decide whether this new ocean will be a sea of peace or a new terrifying theater of war.

~~~ John F. Kennedy ~~~

Address at Rice University in Houston, 9/12/62





.

excellent

[Hjarloprillar]

.








.......................................................................








We set sail on this new sea because there is new knowledge to be gained and new rights to be won and they must be won and used for the progress of all people. For space science, like nuclear science and technology, has no conscience of its own. Whether it will become a force for good or ill depends on man and only if the United States occupies a position of preeminence can we help decide whether this new ocean will be a sea of peace or a new terrifying theater of war.

~~~ John F. Kennedy ~~~

Address at Rice University in Houston, 9/12/62





.

excellent
so many consider jfk a lush.. and his ideas
childish and wishfull
he was and is my hero
i believe that every thing he said was from the heart and as suchis greater than mere political gab.

in field of poltics.. His vision had man to the moon. how awesome is that.
To leave earth and go to another world.
When he was shot i cried for days.i fell down on class room and wept.,.i was like 13. some kids called me crybaby.. i was banned fro school foe beating thm to bloddy rags.
I refusd to leave my room. The hate i had for those who did it is still more than strong in my heart. it burns like a fire. pure rage reared its head/
even today if i came across perp who wa part of that assasination i would tear him appart with bare hands
The blood would flow The footpath spattered with entrailsof that non person I go to goal so what. . bet you icould beat it in court
the judge is old enouph to know jfk. i think it would be a cnn trial

he was and is my hero
if by 2020 the us govt has forgottren JFK ever was.. i will have to remind them
7.62 caliber

[Arising_uk]

... there is decline in fitness from germ line cell mutations ...

What do you mean by a "decline in fitness"?

[jinx]

Well biological fitness on the vertical axis (1 your reproducing 0 your dead) and time on the horizontal axis, and a decline in fitness each generation from sex line cell mutations.

[Kuznetzova]

...

there is decline in fitness from germ line cell mutations (multiple literatures dating back 80 years) + John Sanford covers it in his book 'Genetic entropy'.

...

Right. If you isolate a bacterial species in the protective and nurturing environment of a test tube, then yes, you will see all sorts of wild reductions in fitness. What did you expect to have happen?

Out in the wild, the bacterial strains that cannot reproduce or survive go extinct, leaving room for those who could. We call that Natural Selection.

What you and Mr. Stanford don't understand is that nowhere in the science of biology is it claimed that organisms become more fit in the wild by some "mystical force which is unknown to science". The theory tells you precisely why this happens.

I have already shown you the graph of major extinctions through geological history. There was not one big extinction event in a Noah Flood. There were dozens of major mass extinctions in history of this planet. The Late Permian extinction event was extraordinary in its severity -- far more severe than even the one that got the dinosaurs. It is estimated that 70% of the species in the oceans died out in that time.

Potmarked between these "mass extinctions" are minor extinctions, which happen regularly and with random distributions in severity. And why am I talking about this? I give you these examples because it shows a very long organic process that is not guided, and makes lots of mistakes that lead to dead ends. Dead ends = extinctions. You would expect this if Natural Selection were the foundations of the process in the wild, and it is exactly what we measure in the fossil record.