The Limits of Science

[jackles]

I think this comes to the question.what is the observer in terms of science.the answer has to be consciousness.what is consciousness. nonlocality.consciousness has to be nonlocal to the event being observed.nonlocality is where science finishes.science starts and finishes in nonlocality.

[skakos]

For me this is the point where the truly interesting questions about consciousness arise.

We, as observers, are those who give (literally) meaning to the cosmos...

[Godfree]

For me this is the point where the truly interesting questions about consciousness arise.

We, as observers, are those who give (literally) meaning to the cosmos...

I would suggest a rather more direct explanation for our mate jackles ,
I have tried to explain a consciousness to him on other threads and it keeps appearing on most of the threads he is now on ,
allow me to interpret , consciousness , to jackles = god,
so if he can persuade people we all have the same consciousness ,
then that must be god ,,???
a fairly lame and stupid thing to try and prove to my mind,
he has no facts no logic and no understanding,
and yet in his mind he imagines he is on to something important here ,
or why would he be launching in to the same subject on every thread ,,????

[Godfree]

I think this comes to the question.what is the observer in terms of science.the answer has to be consciousness.what is consciousness. nonlocality.consciousness has to be nonlocal to the event being observed.nonlocality is where science finishes.science starts and finishes in nonlocality.

and what takes over when science finishes , or before it starts ,
logic , you have not demonstrated any so far ,
instinct , that comes pre-programmed ,
and try this nonlocal bullshit again ,
spell it out in a sentence that makes sense ,
exactly why do you think consciousness has to be nonlocal ,,???
do you mean I can't be aware of self , because that pretty local ,,???
see if you can explain in any way why consciousness has to be nonlocal ,
I would suggest this is nonscience , nonsense , and a waste of time .

[jackles]

Non location at quantum level is what einstien called spooky action at a distance.distance that is in the diamentions of time and space.so action at the quantum level of things has this element.the brain .all brains work at light speed .imformation is dealt with at light speed.light speed as you know is the limit speed.so imformation is on this limit.theres no reason why the nonlocal element shouldnt be involved as an interface in the brain to give it locality or event consciousness.locality happened as in the big bang.the nonlocal element did not happen.so its not relative it doesnt move .happening things move in time space.thats the way i under stand it.im not bull shitting or trying to bullshit.evolution then makes some scence.

[skakos]

For me this is the point where the truly interesting questions about consciousness arise.

We, as observers, are those who give (literally) meaning to the cosmos...

I would suggest a rather more direct explanation for our mate jackles ,
I have tried to explain a consciousness to him on other threads and it keeps appearing on most of the threads he is now on ,
allow me to interpret , consciousness , to jackles = god,
so if he can persuade people we all have the same consciousness ,
then that must be god ,,???
a fairly lame and stupid thing to try and prove to my mind,
he has no facts no logic and no understanding,
and yet in his mind he imagines he is on to something important here ,
or why would he be launching in to the same subject on every thread ,,????

What kind of evidence do you have that me and you have DIFFERENT consciousnesses?

[jackles]

God free in a previous post you very correctly evaluated your position as regards consciousness.what you relalised is a correct navigation of your particular state.so theres nothing wrong with your logic on your future as it stands as regards consciousness.

[jackles]

3d construct future is stored relative 4d as a probility.so outcomes of 3d fiction stories are not fixed as an absolute patterns on a one brain scale.so one brain future can be altered.example above.

[Cerveny]

It is difficult to take the view that the Universe is random. It is difficult to miss strong and constant feeding of matter and particularly feeding of not-entropy (from the "future"). It is difficult to ignore the existence (?) of the world of ideas (mathematical structures and laws...) independent of human consciousness ... Strong support of life and strong will to live is the apparent... Something wants something from us. Art? Science? Love? Belief? Something, that we can somethime hear in sound of the silece :)

[QMan]

Anything in the past (even yesterday) is forever lost to observational science and so falls into the category of forensic/historical science. The further back in time/less historical records there is for an event the more 'inferences' have to be made and so the more possibility there is of being wrong. Even in the present though science starts with faith, faith that the world is real, faith that mans senses are not deceiving him, faith that the laws of the universe will not change tomorrow without those first faith based assumptions science doesn't get done.

Not quite accurate since we live in the present and always have one foot in the past and one in the future. Thus our destiny (future) is to always deal with past events (so that "Current Events" for a news program is really a misnomer). Consequently, everything we do, and you might say this is splitting hairs now, is forensic. Also, science starts not with faith but with the expectation that applied methods are thoroughly vetted and therefore forever repeatable unless a mistake is made by the experimenter. That's why in a laboratory you follow steps outlined in documents called lab/test/operating procedures and specifications. So faith has nothing to do with it but experience does. Based on that, you know that it will work, and faith, by comparison, means you hope that it will work. Hence the expression "unjustifiable faith", but you can't say "unjustifiable experience."

[skakos]

For me, the opposite of entropy is free will.
We make decisions and consciously do things, against the normal route of things.
If the universe was filled in only with lifeless matter, then nothing would even "happen".
Modern QM has showed us that unless an observer... observes, then nothing can happen...
Free will and Consciousness are the keys to find the meaning of the universe.

[surreptitious57]

We do not give meaning to the Cosmos. We do give meaning or rather attempt to give meaning to our place in the Cosmos which is something entirely different however. As it is all from our own subjective interpretation. One of which is the view that there must be meaning of some
kind otherwise it does not explain why we are here. We are here since our existence is compatible with the laws of physics and chemistry
and biology. Anything else is superfluous to requirement. The only reason we go in search of meaning is because of a fear of death and a
general belief that we deserve more just because we have the ability to philosophise about our existence in the first place. The first is
complete nonsense as we were dead for all of known existence before we were born and did not bother us then so why should it now
The second is just arrogance of the highest order. We are not actually that important in the grand scheme of things. Nothing is. And
the Cosmos itself is of no importance and so neither does it have any meaning to it either. It just is. And that is it. No more no less

[skakos]

We do not give meaning to the Cosmos. We give meaning - or rather attempt to - give meaning to our place in the Cosmos which is something entirely different now. Because it is all from our own subjective interpretation. One of which is the view that there must be meaning of some kind otherwise it does not explain why we are here. We are here because our existence is compatible with the laws of physics and chemistry and biology. Anything else is superfluous to requirement. The only reason we go in search of meaning is because of a fear of death and a general belief that we deserve more just because we have the ability to philosophise about our existence in the first place. The first is complete nonsense. We were dead for all of known existence before we were born and it did not bother us then so why should it now ? The second is just arrogance of the highest order. We are not actually important at all in the grand scheme of things. Nothing is. Even the Cosmos itself is of no importance and so neither does it have any meaning to it either. It just is. And that is it. No more no less

Really? Would the cosmos "be" if there was no one to observe it? If yes, how? And how would you "know" that?
You say we are here because of the laws of physics. Do you also mean that we are just "matter" and nothing more?
If so, how come we "fear death"? Does a stone "fear death"?
If nothing is important, then why are we constantly looking out for important things? Why has nature cursed us in such a manner?
What value is life? What value is death?

[MMasz]

But religion does not accept a God based on NO EVIDENCE whatsoever! There are many evidence. From the subtle parameterization of the cosmos for it to be able to sustain life, to the complicated designs which sustain life, from the DNA that encodes information that I dare you to create via random "noise"-making processes, to the very things you feel and which undermine every materialistic shallow explanation of the world. Not to mention the logical proofs of Godel and Aristotle for a First Cause. Would you call that "blind faith"? No...

You have claimed that DNA is evidence for divine intervention in the universe. On top of that you have claimed that God must be a first cause. (I will assume for brevity, that you mean God was the direct cause of the Big Bang. Honestly, Aristotle knew not an iota of our modern understanding of the cosmos.)

Now let's do a little exercise I like to called Reductio ad Absurdum. In Reductio, you go ahead and pretend like the premises are completely true, then you derive consequences that are absurd. This tells you that the original premises stink, and should be thrown out the window.

Okay, let's do this. Let's pretend like God actually caused the big bang, and that God directly interfered with the Earth in order to design DNA. Those are the premises. Now let's draw some conclusions.

God did the Big Bang directly. When he was finished, he left the universe alone and did not touch it. The universe went about forming stars and galaxies by completely natural forces. It later formed the solar system and earth by completely natural processes. DNA molecules are composed of atoms, mostly carbon, oxygen, hydrogen, and phosphorous. These elements were all formed completely naturally (no God involved) in the explosions of stars during their supernovas. DNA chains are made of nucleotide bases. These bases can form naturally and Miller and Urey showed how that can happen, sans God.

So God did the Big Bang, then he departed the universe and went on vacation for 9.7 billion years. The universe did everything naturally by itself while he was gone. Then suddenly, at around 3.5 billion years ago, God comes back to the universe and finds this one little planet near a star in the Milky Way and he says to himself : "Golly gee wizz boss -- I think imma design me some DNA today!"

So God did not create DNA... he sort of fashioned it like a chef from existing ingredients found directly on the Earth already. Yeah that's right. The necessary ingredients were already sitting right there on Earth, ready for God to come along and start stitching them together.(what a coinq-ee-dink!).

What was the first thing God made? God made a bunch of bacteria to slosh around the ocean. And then he took his spanking-new Divinely-Fashioned DNA Molecules and placed most of them where? Yeah, I'm asking you. Where did God put most of the DNA on this planet? Do you know the answer to that question? (Have ever even considered asking it?)

Welp, God put most of his Special Divine DNA in microscopic little bags with needles on them that slosh around in the ocean infecting various bacteria that they ram into (by accident). Those things are called Marine Bacteriophages. They are the most common DNA container on the face of planet earth - by far - by far!

So basically God did the Big Bang, went on vacation for 9 billion years, then came back and decided to cover the entire face of some little rocky planet with viruses that squirt DNA into bacteria. Oh, and by the way, he specifically designed these things to-order, according to his genius plan.


So skakos, we have completed our little Reductio exercise, and we have landed on an absurdum. At this point you have two choices. 1. You can try to amend or discard your premises. or 2. You can continue to make yourself look completely idiotic. Your choice. Ball's in your court, buddy.

I got this far before commenting. Kuznetzova, I’d challenge the premises in your reductio. You merely constructed a straw man and they proceeded to tear it down. Go back and try again, but base your reductio argument on what God has revealed of himself in the Bible rather than the ruminations of your mind.

[Tusok]

Science is not a thing that moves in space - it does not have limits, unless you bring your own limitations to that thing.

Science is a method. Science is a process. Science is one of many ways that we, as people, learn about the universe we live within.

The speed of light is a natural limit to the speed of light - it is not a limitation of science.
The infinitely unreachable exact number of pi is also not a limit, it is only a property of the ratio of the circumference of a circle to its diameter.