I have explored that and come to the conclusion that an “irreducible complexity” is illogical and that it all began with a simple dynamic singularity.
Note that I strive for simplicity, not complexity.
Well, Okay dokay then.
Perhaps my posit lacked clarity.
Maths are not causal but functional. Therefore the concept of probability is perfectly justified as long as the actual functional interaction of a probabilistic event (see chaos theory) is via mathematical guiding principles, i.e. self-forming of regularly repeating patterns.
I believe all those conditions have been confirmed by current mainstream science.
Perhaps
I believe I said that
Yes, I see no fundamental differences in our conceptualization. Any difference seems to lie in the narrative used, emphasizing certain points from a slightly different perspective.
Conceptualization (information science)
Chart showing the relation between a conceptualization in information science, its various ontologies (each with its own specialized language), and their shared ontological commitment.[1]
In information science a conceptualization is an abstract simplified view of some selected part of the world, containing the objects, concepts, and other entities that are presumed of interest for some particular purpose and the relationships between them.[2][3] An explicit specification of a conceptualization is an ontology, and it may occur that a conceptualization can be realized by several distinct ontologies.[2]
An ontological commitment in describing ontological comparisons is taken to refer to that subset of elements of an ontology shared with all the others.[4][5] “An ontology is language-dependent”, its objects and interrelations described within the language it uses, while a conceptualization is always the same, more general, its concepts existing “independently of the language used to describe it”.[6] The relation between these terms is shown in the figure to the right… (see above).
Conceptualization (information science) - Wikipedia
No one is denying Math is a tool with universal applications.
Effective for science, fantastic for modeling and more is possible and being done.
What about those questions regular human beings are asking themselves, when they are staring in the mirror, before crawling into the bed and eventually falling asleep.
A better alternative to what Math? What does that mean? Why should we?
If it’s unproductive it’s because, on the one hand, you refuse to let go of the math,
on the other hand, you still haven’t shown why, or how it could matter for the “deep” questions most humans are struggling with in one form or other.
I’m trying to get through on our humanist issues. This is about people and self-awareness, self-contentment, direction, curiosity and joy of the living. It’s about how we feel when we look into the mirror, and then crawl into bed and those moments of self-honesty before falling asleep.
It’s about showing, there’s a path for discovering one’s inner connection with Earth, and that understanding deep time holds a key to appreciating oneself and our place in this moment in time.
Appreciating that you are an evolved biological sensing creature, offers tools for self realization that no amount of math-worship, or god-worship can touch.
All it takes is honest curiosity and doing the homework.
I’m reminded of the trucking term: Outrunning your Headlights.
Especially bad on stormy nights.
Back to Science, I’d contend that Science is about understanding the world we humans live in. Stuff we observe, measure and interact with.
But technology has driven us to the point of dancing at Planck scales, and all benchmarks are lost.
I think the Penroses, Hameroffs, Hoffmans, Tegmarks are outrunning fundamental Science’s Headlights . . .
Combining Philosophy with Math, doesn’t necessarily equal Science.
Matter doesn’t need metaphysics to explain itself.
Humans, however, do need metaphysics to explain the world to ourselves.
And you don’t seem to appreciate that human aspect.
Then why are we defending the concept of a God as a productive endeavor?
When we start looking at the fundamentals of physical patterns, the constituent part become smaller, less physically solid, and less organic (simpler) in constituent parts.
A hydrogen molecule (H2O) is one of the simplest value patterns and is one of the earliest physical objects in the universe. Oddly it is strictly not an organic molecule, but an oxygen-hydride and essential in the formation of organic chemistry.
MODERATED EDIT by Lausten:
I created a different thread for this. It could be relevant to this thread, but it would be a very long, potentially unresolvable sub-conversation.
Who is doing that? In this post?
I agree with Lausten
Though.
If I’m defending something about God, then it’s the accepting that god’s are created from within human beings.
We, people, can’t look at fundamental particles.
They aren’t part of our daily awareness, or concern.
Humanism, the human perspective and all that . . . . . . .
We can create machines that send us signals, that we must decode and then recompose into some coherent ideas, based on the data received. But don’t mistake that with witnessing an apple fall from a tree.
No one has seen an atom full of empty space resembling a planetary system, that was something someone imagined, based on limited information. But, certainly nothing Bohr every saw or experienced!
1 Like
In about 5 billion people on earth. You are suggesting the human approach.
I try to stay on science.
[quote=“citizenschallengev4, post:129, topic:10237, full:true”]
I agree with LaustenThough.
If I’m defending something about God, then it’s the accepting that god’s are created from within human beings.
OK, but that’s not practising science.
We, people, can’t look at fundamental particles.
They aren’t part of our daily awareness, or concern.
Humanism, the human perspective and all that . . . . . . .
We can create machines that send us signals, that we must decode and then recompose into some coherent ideas, based on the data received. But don’t mistake that with witnessing an apple fall from a tree.
I agree with what you say, but it is not relevant to the OP question. Science specifically does not accept personal anecdotes, unless accompanied by mathematical proofs.
No one has seen an atom full of empty space resembling a planetary system, that was something someone imagined, based on limited information. But, certainly nothing Bohr every saw or experienced!
Perhaps greater access to information will allow us to solve some of the questions that stumped Bohr, et al.
We’re getting closer all the time.
Microtubule Dynamics
Microtubules are biological polymers that alternate between periods of growth and shrinkage. This process, termed dynamic instability by its discovers Mitchison and Kirshner, is crucial for microtubule length regulation, for the exploration of intracellular space, and for cellular force generation. Despite its central role in cell biology, dynamic instability is poorly understood.
We are taking several complementary approaches to understanding dynamics…
more…Microtubule Dynamics | Howard Lab
See the Highest-Resolution Atomic Image Ever Captured
Scientists achieved a record level of visual detail with an imaging technique that could help develop future electronics and better batteries
Image shows an electron ptychographic reconstruction of a praseodymium orthoscandate (PrScO3) crystal, zoomed in 100 million times. Credit: Cornell University
Notice the beautiful pattern forming at atomic level
Behold the highest-resolution image of atoms ever taken. To create it, Cornell University researchers captured a sample from a crystal in three dimensions and magnified it 100 million times, doubling the resolution that earned the same scientists a Guinness World Record in 2018. Their imaging process could help develop materials for designing more powerful and efficient phones, computers and other electronics, as well as longer-lasting batteries.
more…
See the Highest-Resolution Atomic Image Ever Captured | Scientific American
This is where it gets weird. That’s some serious pronoun confusion. Why would you ask why 5 billion people defend the concept of god in a discussion about science, but then say you stay on science?
For that matter, what do you mean, stay on science? You are human. Science is how you attempt to understand your environment. It’s a human approach. Whether math was invented or discovered, we became human as result of those forces.
Gravity doesn’t have senses that feel electromagnetism. Electromagnetism doesn’t see quantum entanglement. But we see and feel things. Do you get the difference?
1 Like
What I wanted this thread to be about.
Anyone who has engaged someone who posits a pseudo-scientific viewpoint should find this interesting.
I don’t mind threads going off a single topic, it’s the free exchange ideas, right? But sometimes, I want to discuss a thing, so I start a thread. This one is the “demarcation problem”, as the article says, this goes back to the 5th century BC with Socrates. It affects every day, I think part of it is abuse of the gray area. We can’t all be experts in everything, so how do we evaluate scientific data from the experts?
Some solutions: Kuhn says we exist in the current paradigm, anything outside of that is not science. This sets aside the bothersome problems of the paradigms by declaring it the best we know so far. Popper says a scientific claim has to be falsifiable, even if the experiment hasn’t been done yet. But does it open up too much? Moberg states a scientific notion needs to be concerned about being true. This is more character based, on the claimer, not the claim.
This is my summary of the link, and the link itself is an intro something much longer.
Pseudoscience and the Demarcation Problem | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy (utm.edu)
It includes many more interesting thoughts, like how the debate about demarcation is philosophical and science can go on as it is without resolving that debate, “Arguably, philosophy does not make progress by resolving debates, but by discovering and exploring alternative positions in the conceptual spaces defined by a particular philosophical question (Pigliucci 2017).”
Section 3 gets interesting, discussing how pseudoscience has a philosophy, an illogical one, but still. There are differences between creationism and vaccine denial, but they share some assumptions.
It’s quite lengthy, and so is this post, so I’ll leave it there for now.
[quote=“lausten, post:132, topic:10237, full:true”]
This is where it gets weird. That’s some serious pronoun confusion. Why would you ask why 5 billion people defend the concept of god in a discussion about science, but then say you stay on science?
This was in response to CC’s post: 126
It doesn’t for 5 billion religious people. According to scripture matter was created whole as “irreducible complex” patterns. But that is not science.
For that matter, what do you mean, stay on science? You are human. Science is how you attempt to understand your environment. It’s a human approach. Whether math was invented or discovered, we became human as result of those forces.
Everything became as a result of those forces, but it started not as matter.
Matter formed after the beginning.
Gravity doesn’t have senses that feel electromagnetism. Electromagnetism doesn’t see quantum entanglement. But we see and feel things. Do you get the difference?
Of course, but that is not science.
p.s. That pic of atoms shows the amount of “space” separating" the atoms in a solid crystal
And where do atoms come from?
Science
Branch of knowledge
Description
Science is a rigorous, systematic endeavor that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the world. Wikipedia
Personal experience is not a reliable indicator and not considered scientific.
Only instruments can make reliable “observation” and “analysis” of matter and it’s constituent parts.
I lost the post about this. I explain more when I have time.
Please take this to this thread
I’m pretty sure we are thinking different things.
Allow me to run through my answer to those basics:
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.
And I don’t over look this detail:
How does an assumption of God, transubstantiate into a Being of God?
But this is science:
Mar 22, 2022 - ### The Bigger Picture Podcast by Roni Firon Fouks
In today’s episode, Prof. Mark Solms, a psychoanalyst and neuropsychologist from South Africa who is well known for his groundbreaking research on the brain mechanisms of dreaming.
We spoke about the unique field of neuropsychoanalysis, some of his earlier research showing why Freud was right about dreaming, and about his new book The Hidden Spring: A Journey to the Source of Consciousness.
Mark brings forth a revolutionary theory of consciousness that returns emotions and feelings (& evolution!) to the center of our mental lives.
10:22 Brain Mechanisms of Dreaming
23:17 A Double Dissociation of Function
24:09 Motivational System of the Mammalian Brain
28:30 The Neural Correlate of Consciousness
29:37 Blind Sight
30:58 The Hard Problem of Consciousness
31:47 The Knowledge Argument
36:07 The Reticular Activating System
46:00 What is the Difference between Feeling and Thinking
47:02 What is Fear
58:52 What Advice Would You Give Your 20 year Old Self Just Starting Out
Oh, to be sure, I agree with everything you present in context of human intelligence and thoughts , but the universe does not run on human or any organic thought.
The universe runs on universal mathematical constants, not thoughts.
But it cannot be denied that religions have been responsible for some extraordinary human accomplishments, as well as abject failures.
What does that mean? You aren’t answering the question of this topic. I’m not asking what “runs” the universe. Impersonal, non-thinking forces make it happen, they aren’t managers, they don’t make decisions.
The question is about science, which happens by people who live less than 120 years thinking and doing. We “run” our daily lives and affect the well-being of living beings now. That’s what this question is about.
Then why can’t you do me the courtesy of show that quote in context?
Or do you disagree with my definitions for science?
Not at all… 