Will science ever comprehend it all?

Discussion in 'Science & Society' started by Spirit17, Jun 18, 2001.

  1. Spirit17 Registered Member

    Can anything. This mini essay I wrote is full of wholes, but your thoughts or welcome...

    Are We as a species capable of comprehending the universe in every which way?

    Through empirical science I don't believe so. Through spirituality I don't believe so. Through aesthetics I don't believe so… Through all three I believe there is potential for the human race to come as close as we need too to become fully content with the fact that by its very nature, the universe is incomprehensible (contrary to Einstein). And that's as close as we'll get.

    Science, by its very nature is incapable of resolving life’s greatest mysteries because for the most part, science eliminates intrinsic properties of the universe from its equations. (A notable contradiction to this statement is general relativity, albeit only to a degree). There are acception, as scientists almost like clockwork, gravitate towards the most aesthetically pleasing of solutions. Hence, the irrationality of using ‘beauty’ as a gauging instrument. In the end however, subjectivity, beauty, and a plethora of emotions and other things associated with behavior are neglected in scientific studies. An atheist of course would be quick to refute my argument by pointing out that the aforementioned objections are flawed because such things exist only as fabrications of the mind. I’ll disregard the fact that all perceptions take place in the mind only, and that consciousness is a natural property of the universe because a) it exists and b) it can be observed objectively and say that if you want to throw out those things than of course, you would have to eliminate ‘belief’. Without belief, knowledge is useless. A person can know something is affecting them in a negative way, but unless there ‘motivated’ by the ‘belief’ that these facts are true they are not likely to survive long as sentient beings (if you can call them that). ‘Curiosity’, ‘drive’, ‘fixation’, most importantly ‘logic’ are all examples of things used in the scientific conquest and yet subsequently ignored (neuroscience does not count. You can poke things in a persons brain to make them taste yogurt, hear Mozart among other things. The double standards used are irritating). You might however question why is it that when tested by empirical science consciousness fails to be observed anywhere other than scanning devices such as the EEG? That's a darn good question; just what does this mean is being observed? The answer is nothing because the perceptual integrity of the human brain lies beyond in the unfathomable precinct of that which is capable of being perceived by the objective observer. After all, can you draw a circle around it? It lies above what science dictates is impossible.

    You might be wondering why such confidence in my belief that science can only go so far because of the elimination of subjectivity when researching far reaching almost philosophical studies such as quantum mechanics and cosmology? Well its a funny thing, this morning I read an article in the paper about a recent experiment that brought about the knowledge that neutrinos are fairly light in mass. The implications suggest ('prove 'would be more appropriate for the tone of the column) that as the universe ends its existents, the gravitational pull emitted by neutrinos will be too feeble to pull everything back together into the antiquity of whence it began, hence; The big crunch. Instead, the findings confirm that the universe will gradually progress to an incredibly vast, pitch-black pancake made up of sparse dusty particles (on a local scale). I dismiss the theory out of hand for the simple fact it fails to equate the most important and consistent elements of all scientific endeavors Beauty. Of course I do have other objections irrelevant to this discussion but on principle alone, I have no doubt the theory will ultimately be overturned. And if not… I’ll be proven right in some astronomically ridiculous number of years.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. frink Registered Member

    "If our brain was so simple we could understand it, we would be so simple that we couldn't."
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. glaucon tending tangentially Registered Senior Member

    With this kind of thing, you end up running into what I like to call a 'Meta-' problem.

    Is there a biggest number?
    Add one to it.

    With respect to the question of knowledge, refer to Socrates: 'the more I know, the less I know'

    As one (a person, a society, a species...) gathers more information and learns more, the more aware one becomes of not only what there is to know, but the ways in which they can become known, which in turn itself can become an object of knowledge. And so on, ad infinitum.

    Ah well....
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. Pennysong Registered Member

    Science has to discard all notions of personal opinion ( beauty, spirituality) to work properly. We may be able to know all there is to know one day; after all, the same basic principles that govern our solar system and our walkman apply throughout the galaxies.

Share This Page