So, what's science then?

Philosophy
41

I don’t know if this is a key to our misunderstandings, or just another alleyway to nowhere. I can’t square, “figuring out” with “jumps to math” is an antisepsis. Granted, I don’t like overplaying math as some answer to everything, but that doesn’t have to get in the way of the figuring it out. Especially since I don’t know how you could figure it out without doing a few calculations.

Getting some compost under your fingernails is also important, but it’s not either/or. You might get the inspiration out in the garden, but you need some time in the lab to work it out. And some time for quiet reflection is important too.

42

There in there, but how the salamanders got in there, I’ve no idea, but they don’t bug me, though they make me much more careful with that pitch-fork.

43

When it’s done to derail the discussion going on, it’s not all together an unreasonable observation.

Also think the difference between Max Tegmark and E.O.Wilson and you might get my drift.

When that figuring out is about us figuring out our own place in the scheme of things we deal with on a daily basis, in this here and now world, running off to focus on the bazillion microtubules doing their jobs - incidentally, practically at Planck scales - I’ll call that diversionary.

I’ve never knocked the lab time, I’m as fascinate by the developing microtubule as any layperson. I’ve got the reading record that proves I’m very interested in that microscopic world and what experts keep discovering - but that is entirely different from people to people conversations about our perceptions, and trying to draw some clarity out of it.

44

Okay I get that. Write likes to float his favorite theories, to the exclusion of others, I’ll give you that.

I thought your comment was more a general one, on how to access knowledge of the universe.

1 Like
45

Wait a minute. At that level the choice of fundamentals becomes very small and its either mathematical or not. There is nothing else.

If it is not mathematical, it is not a language and cannot be symbolized, equated, and used for describing “orderly behaviors” in nature.

We’d literally be “up the creek without a paddle”

What would you use to describe the interactive values of physics.

46

Just recently I’ve started thinking of it in terms of my perceptual center of gravity, and where I’m different from the vast majority of people is that quite literally my center of perceptual gravity has drifted down a little, and become aware of my body’s perceptual outlook upon the world.

While Write is comfortable referring to consciousness as an on/off thing …
I’ve become aware that within my body, beyond the consciousness of my thoughts, there lies layers of awareness that go back generations, thousand of generations. I outlook is wrapped in a flowing continuity, not a snap shot thing.

gotta run, but wanted to get that out. will clean up with time.

47

So, no point in talking to you then

48

Seems to me that, if true, it is the only point worth talking about.

Remember, there is some evidence for this and with “this” I mean thousands of years of great minds advancing the same observation that the universe operates in a natural form of applied mathematics, an analytical perspective that has been adopted and symbolized by science.

The only other “belief system” is theology, and I see no justification to compare science with religion. They are at opposite ends of the spectrum.

49

I disagree with the dichotomy. Your focus is narrow

50

Hence my question “What else is there”?

51

I thought you meant that rhetorically.

52

While they were also looking for God, their writings are saturated with it.

Why not, I know you’ve read this before, have you ever given it much thought?

Recognizing that for us to exist at all, means that the universe and Earth had to have flowed down one specific reality, regardless of what we imagine. The moral: Ours is not to assume & presume, ours is to observe and live and learn.

Are science and religion simply belief systems of a different flavor?

Religion is all about the human mindscape itself, with its wonderful struggles, fears, spiritual undercurrents, needs and stories we create to give our live’s meaning and make it worth living, or at least bearable.

Science seeks to objectively learn about our physical world.

Still, I believe we must recognize that all of our understanding is embedded within and constrained by our mind.

The scientific process is basically a set of rules for gathering and assessing our observations in an honest, open and disciplined manner - one that all who’ve learned the language can participate in and trust A global community of educated, informed and skeptical experts who are constantly looking over each other’s shoulders.

Science is predicated on the notion of exacting observation and fidelity to honesty!

Religion is predicated on dealing with communities of people, along with their fears, desires, and needs.

What’s the point?

Religions, scientific knowledge, political beliefs, heaven, hell, art, music, even God they are all products of the human mindscape, generations of imaginings built upon previous generations of imaginings, all the way down. All are valid human endeavors, but fundamentally, qualitatively different.

Religion deals with the inside of our minds, hearts and souls, Science does its best to objectively understand the physical world beyond all that, doing its best to quarantine ego and bias from its deliberations.

Physical Reality is the physical world of atoms, molecules, universal laws of physics and Earth’s laws of nature. It is Earth’s dance between geology and biology and time and evolving creatures.

Human Mindscape is all that goes on inside of our thoughts & feelings. The landscape of your musings, desires and impulses and those various voices and personalities who inhabit our mind. The me, myself & I. The ineffable ideas that our hands can turn into physical creations that change our planet.

53

No,i Its easy to reject a theory that is so familiar to humans as to having been invented by humans. But the human contribution is only the symbolic representations of the observed mathematics involved in all physic interactions that has allowed us to “measure” and represent natural interactive functions.

So, if not mathematical, what is it? I cannot think of a science that is not dependent on “differential equations” (imbalance, symmetry).

54

Are you referring to any specific theory?

So you think you have something universal?
Or simply something that’s relevant to the human imagination?

And how does acknowledging/understanding this mathematical underpinning to everything actually relate to our lives and how we feel inside as we deal with situations?

55

I am not disputing the social influences of religions. I am disputing the “unproven” religious theories. Whereas the Quasi-Intelligent self-organizing mathematical functions are known to self-form patterns that make up our reality.

I am not addressing what religions and sciences mean to humans, but which is valid even without humans.

Tegmark’s, " Mathematical Universe Hypothesis (MUH)".

Mathematical universe hypothesis

Mathematical universe hypothesis

In physics and cosmology, the mathematical universe hypothesis (MUH), also known as the ultimate ensemble theory, is a speculative “theory of everything” (TOE) proposed by cosmologist Max Tegmark.[1][2]

Description

Tegmark’s MUH is the hypothesis that our external physical reality is a mathematical structure.[3] That is, the physical universe is not merely described by mathematics, but is mathematics — specifically, a mathematical structure. Mathematical existence equals physical existence, and all structures that exist mathematically exist physically as well. Observers, including humans, are “self-aware substructures (SASs)”. In any mathematical structure complex enough to contain such substructures, they “will subjectively perceive themselves as existing in a physically ‘real’ world”.[4]

The theory can be considered a form of Pythagoreanism or Platonism in that it proposes the existence of mathematical entities; a form of mathematicism in that it denies that anything exists except mathematical objects; and a formal expression of ontic structural realism.

Tegmark claims that the hypothesis has no free parameters and is not observationally ruled out. Thus, he reasons, it is preferred over other theories-of-everything by Occam’s Razor. Tegmark also considers augmenting the MUH with a second assumption, the computable universe hypothesis (CUH), which says that the mathematical structure that is our external physical reality is defined by computable functions.[5]

The MUH is related to Tegmark’s categorization of four levels of the multiverse.[6] This categorization posits a nested hierarchy of increasing diversity, with worlds corresponding to different sets of initial conditions (level 1), physical constants (level 2), quantum branches (level 3), and altogether different equations or mathematical structures (level 4).

56

You are so missing the point.

57

Does any of this affect universal functions?

58

I’m trying to figure out what you’re claiming, so I know what you’re asking from me. It changes from post to post. It’s not the topic of this thread, or that latest question in it, so why did you even bring it up? It seems to be something like math is provable and makes predictions therefore it’s the only way to prove things. How can I respond to that?

59

We are talking about science, the search for physical truth.

Actually, you just made a good argument against mathematics. It’s not falsifiable.

In the case of mathematics, the observations are not empirical observations but mathematical observations (or demonstrations). So, mathematical propositions are not falsifiable by empirical observation. But they are (usually) falsifiable in the sense that they are subject to being demonstrated to be false.

Is mathematics falsifiable? - Quora

1 Like
60

Nope.

It’s all about us.