World view: Mine and ?yours?

[Guv]

If you wish to express your views on religion, ethics, civil rights, political systems, et cetera, please start another thread. I will gladly post my opinion on those subjects, but not here.

Analogous to the faith of a religious fanatic, I have an unshakable belief in the existence of a real universe external to myself. Furthermore, I believe that I and other intelligent entities can develop a clear (but probably incomplete) understanding of that universe by using our minds, perception, and scientific methods.

Note the bias of my language: I could have said religious person instead of fanatic. I used faith for his point of view and belief for mine, suggesting a subtle difference in my favor. While I often accuse others of using fallacious arguments and loaded language, I cannot claim to have hands that are squeaky clean.

I believe that my mind and consciousness are permanently housed in my brain. I also believe that other people and various animals have intelligence and consciousness, with animals having less of each than people.

Mathematics and logic seem to be overlapping disciplines which can be viewed as entirely abstract, and in some sense true or valid. Physics, chemistry, and biology similarly seem to be overlapping disciplines, but I do not believe that these can be considered entirely abstract, and it does not seem reasonable to consider these disciplines as pure, true, or valid.

I do not believe in ESP, the Bermuda Triangle, astrology, channeling, astral projection, nor any other occult phenomena. I mention disbelief in UFO’s, ET visitations, and alien abductions separately because I do believe in the existence of life elsewhere in the universe. I consider the existence of intelligent life elsewhere to be extremely rare.

I expect AI to be developed in the future, but do not believe that there is any current development worthy of the name.

The Pythagorean Theorem will never be replaced by a better or more accurate theorem. Such a statement cannot be said of any law of physics. This is what I mean by saying that mathematic is pure, valid, true, while physics is not pure, true, valid.

What can be said is that no current law of physics is going to be totally refuted as not applicable to the experimental evidence currently used to verify it. For example: General Relativity theory showed that the classical laws of gravity cannot be used to deal with black holes and other situations unknown 200 years ago. However, classical laws are still used by NASA for gravitational computations, because they are easier to calculate, and you cannot measure the difference between their results and relativist calculations. Future developments will similarly be improvements on current science, not refutations of it.

Something many people fail to realize is that our knowledge of the laws of physics get closer and closer to modeling the way the universe seems to work. It has been several hundred years since mainstream science believed something really silly. The future is not going to make current scientific beliefs seem silly. Future developments are only going to show that current science is incomplete in its description of the universe. Future science is likely to show that current science cannot be used for situations not known at present.

We still have a long way to go in developing new technology and/or improving current technology, but diminishing returns might be setting in on basic science. For example, consider chemistry. There are still a myriad of chemical compounds to be investigated and synthesized, especially organic compounds. There are still a lot of new techniques to be discovered. However, there are hardly any (perhaps no) new discoveries to be made in the theories underlying the science of chemistry.

[f¡lburt1]

Heavy man! Relax and have a puff with me

[aknisely]

Originally posted by Guv
However, there are hardly any (perhaps no) new discoveries to be made in the theories underlying the science of chemistry.

I disagree with this statement. Future developments in physics concerning the nucleus of the atom, the physical makeup of protons and neutrons, can quite possibly lead to very radical developments in chemical science. The design of our modern periodic table is only 130 years old, though it has changed very little in structure since Mendeleyev first conceptualized it.

I think Albert Einstein said it best: "No amount of experimentation will ever prove me right, yet only one experiment will prove me wrong."

[Pix]

Originally posted by f¡lburt1
Heavy man! Relax and have a puff with me

Didn't know you were into that sort of thing Filburt

[denniswrenn]

That would explain him being so ****ing stupid j/k

[Skitchen8]

hey, im not stupid, and i do it so SHUT UP!!! meany!!

[HarryW]

Originally posted by aknisely
I disagree with this statement. Future developments in physics concerning the nucleus of the atom, the physical makeup of protons and neutrons, can quite possibly lead to very radical developments in chemical science.

Developments in chemistry maybe, but the discoveries you mention that allow those developments would be classed as physics. It doesn't look to me like you're actually disagreeing.

[aknisely]

Right, but my point was that developments in physics would undoubtedly lead to developments in chemistry. Even a minor discovery of the way quarks work could change everything we think about atomic theory and nuclear chemistry.

[HarryW]

Personally I don't classify that as chemistry, that's physics. But if you want to use different definitions go ahead, I'm not going to argue about it.

[aknisely]

I never heard the term nuclear chemistry, although it sounds like there might be such a term. If it is used, it is surely related to physics, not chemistry

A finer, less relevant point. My Chem 20 AP teacher had to explain the distinction between nuclear chemistry and nuclear physics, and what I understood is that nuclear chemistry deals with the reactants going in to and products coming out of nuclear reactions. It seemed to make sense to most of us. It dips into and relates with physics, but most sciences are interrelated.

Once you know Pi to 20-30 decimal places, you pretty much know all you need to know about it.

Now I see where you're getting at. It's been said that the major advancements of computer technology have been made, the last of which being the Internet. There will be minor developments made in wireless, mobility, and of course faster computers, but no real advances will be made within the next twenty years. One can see this pattern form in many technological advances: airplanes, weapons, cars, many other things.

But I don't think we can close off our minds from radical discovery just yet. It's quite possible that through some irrelevant scientist in an irrelevant lab working on an irrelevant paper might stumble upon some sort of reaction or compound that forces us to abandon what we think of as modern chemistry. Throughout history many discoveries were made searching with a clear destination in mind; the much more profound ones made just by stepping on a funny-looking rock.

[simonm]

Guv

The Pythagorean Theorem will never be replaced by a better or more accurate theorem. Such a statement cannot be said of any law of physics. This is what I mean by saying that mathematic is pure, valid, true, while physics is not pure, true, valid.

Whilst your are probably right with respect to the Pythagorean theorem, we should be cautious with regard to how much trust we put in mathematics and logic.

Cautious, only in the respect that we stop short of absolute belief in it.

As you well know, Mathematicians have failed to demonstrate the consistancy of it's axioms and indeed, Godel has prooved that they never will.

Still, I mention this only to ensure that people realise that nothing is beyond all doubt.

[kedaman]

Guv

Once you know Pi to 20-30 decimal places, you pretty much know all you need to know about it. The next million places do not add much to real knowledge. Similarly, discoveries at the theoretical level in the next few centuries just might not be as spectacular as those of the last two centuries.

That's the worst analogy i ever heard. You argue that knowledge is limited. Never in human history or in perspective of evolution has it showed any sign of decrease in acceleration, why now suddenly?

Other than that you are blinded by the quantity of knowledge, however your intelligence is limited and you can't see the paradoxes because of all the logic.

[simonm]

hat's the worst analogy i ever heard. You argue that knowledge is limited. Never in human history or in perspective of evolution has it showed any sign of decrease in acceleration, why now suddenly?

Indeed, it might turn out that, in terms of scientific progress, we have only calculated the second digit of Pi so far and that we still have a long way to go before we come close to a final view of reality.

[Guv]

Kedaman & Simonm: Do you folks appreciate the huge leap in scientific knowledge represented by Newton's work and the leap due to Quantum Theory?

These developments were incredible. It is hard for me to imagine similar leaps in understanding. It is not that I expect no progress. It is more that I believe that diminishing returns has set in.

It is like the world record for the mile.
1864: 4:56
1865: 4:4:36.5
1895: 4:17
1923: 4:10.4
1954: 4:58
1999: 4:43:13

Do I expect it never to be improved? Of course it will be improved. Do I expect it to drop 30 seconds in one year like between 1864 & 1865? Of course not. It dropped almost 20 second in 30 years from 1865 to 1895. From 1954 to 1999 (45 years), it only dropped 15 seconds. Do I expect the improvement to continually slow down? Yes I do.

Do I expect no progess in physics? Of course I expect progess in physics. Do I expect anything any leaps like those made by Newton in the 17th century or the quantum theory leaps in the 20th? No, I do not expect anything that spectacular, except perhaps in cosmology.

[simonm]

Guv

I don't mean to convey a lack of appreciation for the significance of the "leaps" in progress made in the last few centuries with regards to science and mathematics. Indeed, they are truly incredible.

These developments were incredible. It is hard for me to imagine similar leaps in understanding.

The very fact that they were huge leaps is the very reason a future "huge leap" would be difficult to imagine.

You may be right but I don't think there is any form of objective "yard stick" that we can use to measure our progress to complete understanding.

The, much talked about, "theory of everything" may be such a leap and then again it may not. Only time will tell.

[kedaman]

I agree with simon, and I don't even think there is a complete scale of knowledge, I think we will discover something more essential than physics, that is control of static information we are surrounded with, and then open unlimited possibilites.

[Guv]

Simonm: The Goedel Theorem did not prove inconsistency. It proved incompleteness.

As you well know, Mathematicians have failed to demonstrate the consistancy of it's axioms and indeed, Godel has prooved that they never will.

I think it is true that mathematicians have failed to prove the consistency of axiomatic systems, but Goedel proved incompleteness, not that a proof of consistency was impossible. There is likely to be good reason to believe that consistency will never be proven, but this is not waht Goedel proved.

I think that he proved that there are valid statements which cannot be proven. I think that his proof might have proved either inconsistency or incompleteness as a reducto ad absurdem proof. If this is the case (I am not sure about it), the inconsistency choice is nonsense and the incompleteness choice is obligatory. If you choose inconsistency as the result, the theorem itself cannot be trusted and you have proven nothing.

BTW: I feel very unsure of my own or the opinions of others about the Goedel proof. It is so esoteric that only the real professionals in the field have a clue about it.