And the reason that is not allowed in science is because once you come to a supernatural explanation, you’re done. Pack up your bags, clean out your desk and go get a job digging ditches because there’s nothing else you can do.
Exactly. And that’s why I really hate ID’s concept of “irreducible complexity.” What if that concept would have been applied to human endeavors 5,000 years ago? Or 500? Or 50?
Or what if humans just accepted that lightning was thrown around by Zeus? How could we, mere humans, possibly harness the power of a god? Best not to try or we’ll invoke their wrath. Now if you’ll excuse me I have to go to the next town over, about 18 miles from here. That’s, what, a 6 hour trip by carriage?
@holmes
Apparently you only read the first part of my sentence, so you missed my point. But to be fair. I could have made my point clearer by saying I hate the philosophy behind the concept of “irreducible complexity.”
I’m not talking about the “science” itself, but the thought process that lies behind it, because it essentially puts up a blockade that says, NO NEED TO INVESTIGATE FURTHER.
The rest of my sentence says:
What if that concept would have been applied to human endeavors 5,000 years ago? Or 500? Or 50?Had we done this, we wouldn't even be talking about DNA, or atoms, or gravity, because we wouldn't know about them. What if mankind had applied “irreducible complexity" (a fancy way of saying, this is too complex to explain, so God did it) to questions like, "Why did everyone in this village get the plague?"
only something profoundly beyond our comprehension could serve as an explanation.How can you know it's beyond our comprehension? How can you use your comprehension to determine that it's beyond our comprehension? Seems like you wouldn't even recognize it as something distinct. You would comprehend it in terms of what you know and mis-identify it.
If we insist that everything must be explicable in terms of science then by definition we can never comprehend something that might exist yet is not subject to science, laws etc.Could we just get this down to one term so I don't have to keep responding to different words? I didn't insist on everything being explicable in terms of science, unless you are saying "scientific fact", then obviously you mean by those rules. But when I say "my cat loves me", I mean that by my experience. Or, "the universe is one", that's metaphorical, not scientific. Then you go into this thing about "material", but have been rather unclear on that. And, even if you've accepted that there is some theory on the creation of this observable physical universe, but we still rely on "material" explanations of how space/time was created, you still don't accept that we just have not yet found the explanation for that possible source. When we finally agree on all of that, you assert there must be something incomprehensible.
Which is really where we started. Several of us have admitted not knowing answers and possibly never being able to know answers, yet you keep insisting that we aren’t admitting something. I can’t figure out what that is.
SINCE A SCIENTIFIC EXPLANATION HAS BEEN PROVEN TO BE A LOGICAL IMPOSSIBILITYWho say what scentific explanation has been proven to be logically impossible? In a mathematical universe here are only logical explanations.
Yes, I mean things we use to describe nature, light, energy, fields, gravitation, magnetism, particles etc. Every theory (aka explanation) is expressed in terms of these and similar abstract concepts.That gives me clarity. Thank you.
Yes I noticed “current” and also noted “could not be explained by current natural science” and this is important because an “explanation” in science is confined to material cause and effect.As I said, science starts with observation. So of course science cannot investigate speculation. It is not that science is "confined", it is that the things you are talking about are not supported by observation. This isn't a failure, shortcoming or restriction of science, it's just the thing that you are wanting an explanation for doesn't exist, as far as the evidence is concerned.
It is fundamentally obvious that no “thing” can be the cause of its own existence, and this includes material quantities. The universe encompasses a vast volume of space and time and contains uncountable quantities of matter and energy, we can see it and examine it but all it does is change and fluctuate according to the various laws of nature that we have recognized.Of course the universe could not have caused itself just as a box cannot construct itself. But just as study of the box can tell us a lot about how it was constructed without ever meeting the one who constructed it or personally seeing the tools used, so can study of the universe tell us about its formation.
But laws of nature cannot be the thing that led to laws of nature being here, only something profoundly beyond our comprehension could serve as an explanation.Nobody is suggesting that the laws of nature are the reason we have the laws of nature. That is a red herring often used by theists to necessitate God. You are further making the claim that it is absolutely impossible for science to determine anything about the creation of the universe because they are constrained by the laws of the universe. On the surface that may sound logical, but it assumes a whole lot about the nature of the universe and that which caused it to be.
It assume that whatever caused the universe to be is completely undetectable within the universe. How do you know that? If something is powerful enough to create a universe doesn’t it stand to reason that it is also powerful enough to cause detectable disturbances in that universe?
It assumes that we can never learn more than we currently know about the universe which would allow us to learn about what caused the universe. How do you know that? By definition you cannot know what you don’t know.
It assumes that whatever caused the creation of the universe is untouchable by things within the universe. How do you know that? How can you be certain that the physical laws of the universe do not allow us to peer outside of the container which is the universe? Or escape it altogether?
It assumes that whatever caused the creation of the universe works on rules that we cannot possibly understand because they are vastly different than those of the universe. How do you know that? Can you be certain that whatever caused our universe isn’t exactly like our universe, only with one more dimension? Can you be certain cause and effect either does or does not apply to that?
You are essentially claiming to know, with certainty, enough about the nature of what caused the universe to know absolutely that science cannot ever explain it. Well, if it’s so complicated and hidden and secret that science can never have an explanation, how did you get one?
Anyway, now that I understand what you’re saying I believe I can answer your original questions.
1. A scientific explanation is always expressed in terms of material quantities – do you agree or disagree?And the related quote from your answer:
Every theory (aka explanation) is expressed in terms of these and similar abstract concepts.I would say the majority of theories are, yes. Quantum mechanics or string theory or something along those lines was purely abstract last I knew. There was one theory along those lines which was purely mathematical. A physicist friend of mine regularly tells me how annoyed he is with it because there are no observations and it is not testable, the scientists supporting it doing so because "the math is so beautiful". But most science is based on observation. No observation generally means no science.
2. Therefore material quantities must exist before scientific explanations become possible – do you agree or disagree?Again, for the most part, yes. You have to observe something to be able to explain it.
3. Therefore a scientific explanation for the presence of material quantities cannot exist because there would be no material quantities, but these are required in order to express an explanation – do you agree or disagree?Here is where you go off the rails. You leave no room for future discovery and understanding. 11th dimensional math gives material quantities to the membranes which caused the creation of the universe in membrane theory. You also leave no room for any material quantities (that's a really weird term, by the way. Maybe material qualities would be better?) which are yet to be discovered. You leave no room for whatever caused the creation of the universe to influence the now existing universe, causing measurable, possibly predictable material quantities. As I said, it assumes a lot about the nature of the universe, that which created it and scientific understanding. It precludes the possibility of new observations, new understanding, new sciences and new technologies. For all you know it will be possible in the distant future for man to actually move outside of the universe, through some void where it was created and into one of an infinite number of other universes. You simply cannot say what cannot ever be possible.
2. follows from 1. and 3. follows from 2.You must explain where the above reasoning is in error otherwise you must accept it.
Scientific theories ALWAYS assume the prior existence of physical material and laws of nature, unless you do assume that you cannot construct an explanation but as soon as you do assume that you assume the existence of the very thing you sought to explain, that is not an explanation.That is the definition of a scientific explanation, it's an infinite regress of explanations. It's circular in the sense that science explains science, but each explanation is a new testable, logical explanation, independent of the previous explanation, although always existing in the "material" and depending on the laws of nature. I'll just use your word for simplicity.
Is the problem that I’m assuming existence? There’s no way out of that. Even a non-scientific explanation for existence assumes existence. This is just hard solipsism. I never claimed to have a solution for that.
Sherlock’s point #3, the lever over the fulcrum of his logic:
“…a scientific explanation for the presence of material quantities cannot exist because there would be no material quantities, but these are required in order to express an explanation…”
Congratulations, you just logically proved that a scientific explanation would have been impossible before anything existed.
Before the advent of material things, (if there were such a condition, e.g., pre-big bang) science did not exist. In fact science could not explain anything without existing itself.
I do not concur with your ridiculous interpolation that therefore science (now that it does exist) can explain nothing.
Are you done because I so blatantly exposed the flaw in your “logic”?
I looked through this and saw a bunch of talk about “irreducible complexity” - but it’s all of the What If variety.
I mean, I didn’t notice any examples of “irreducible complexity” - or did I miss it?
Have examples of irreducible complexity be brought forth?
(Eye and flagella don’t count, too much out there debunking it! Look it up.)
What a stunning strawman! Nowhere in this forum have I ever claimed that “science can explain nothing” nowhere.And we're back to word games. Thought we were getting somewhere, but I'm pretty sure you are just mixing ID with solipsism and then defining and redefining words to make it sound like there is more there.
Have examples of irreducible complexity be brought forth?No. I think he is too smart to bring up anything specific because he knows the arguments have been countered already. It would just be a link war at that point, and he'd lose. He sticks to concepts, claiming "irreducible complexity" is a thing and knocking down any attempt to get him to be more specific.
Your logic says that science is based on material things existing. Your conclusion was that science could not explain material things existing, BEFORE it and material things existed. That is technically correct but essentially useless info.
Now that material things and science do exist, science is, has been, and will continue to come up with explanations.
That’s a lengthy post, too lengthy for me to bother repeating it and responding to the many points you raise.How convenient. If you can't be bothered to understand my position why should I consider yours?
What does that mean? what does it mean “I leave no room”? You can’t explain the presence of X in terms of X, so sure there’s always future discoveries but they cannot alter the logic of this fact.Let me put more simply so you will actually read it this time rather than bother address each of the questions YOU asked to give you exactly what YOU asked for only to have you ignore it.
We have universe A (us) created by unknown B. What can we say about the nature of unknown B with absolute certainty, before even bothering to attempt to examine or understand it? Obviously, nothing at all. But you are claiming that we both CAN and DO know that it MUST be ultimately unknowable. If it’s ultimately unknowable, how do you know that?
@holmes
No, even reductionism (or anti-) is too complex a thought process.
Since you like philosophical terms so much, what would be the term for this:
¯_(ツ)_/¯
It just so happens we are having this discussion about irreducable complexity now, in the current era, after we’ve already made certain scientific discoveries. But what would have happened if we had reached that conclusion before those discoveries had been made?
This is an interesting program on how, even though many scientists over many generations spent many years researching the subject, we have known precisely how a sperm and egg unite to create a baby for less than one century.
Despite multiple failures, scientists kept trying to figure it out…because they thought it was possible to know. But they could have just said “God did it” in the past and stopped researching. And then we’d never know.
¯_(ツ)_/¯
This topic has 105 replies it says above, in the small print. I don’t see any of them.
Now they’re back, as if by magic.
@Tee
While I am thinking of it I would like to again thank you, Tee for all of your well constructed, consistently reasonable, and often times illustrious posting participation in these forums. It is a pleasure for me.