Maker Pro
Maker Pro

Why Science is Ridiculous

R

Rich the Philosophizer

Jan 1, 1970
0
I would agree there is a problem with the current methods
of unraveling the mysteries of our existence. The primary
problem is in our timeless habit of reducing to parts
as a first step.

Yes - it's impossible to apprehend the beauty of the Mona Lisa
by analyzing the composition of paint molecules. >;->

Cheers!
Rich
 
R

Rich the Philosophizer

Jan 1, 1970
0
Nothing? Is your reading as mindless as your response?
I asserted that the fundamental laws of the universe should
be derived from the most complex the universe has to offer.
Which are living systems. Instead of the ...simplest...the
unverse has to offer as is our habit.

And I also explained why we should inverse our current
scientific method. I introduced how to do that also.
While providing links to established scientific sources
to provide credibility and more detailed reading.

Actually, the simplest answer is the truest one - the problem is,
"scientists" are denying up to half of what makes existence real.

They insist on externally measurable stuff. But when you're
listening to "The 1812 Overture" or "Claire de Lune", there's
no way to bottle up and measure the feeling of emotional
movement that you experience. But it's very, very real.

What's in a laugh? >:->

Cheers!
Rich
 
R

Rich the Philosophizer

Jan 1, 1970
0
Can you explain why this should be so? Do you expect
that the "most complex the universe has to offer" are
somehow governed by laws which are different from those
which govern the simpler things? If so, how? If not, then
we should be studying the simplest systems which would
reveal the nature of those laws, to remove unnecessary
complications from the observation.

This is all well and good, but one of the things they're missing
is the fractal nature of everything. They're getting themselves
all mentally twisted up trying to fit a fractal uinverse into an
orthogonal model.

Cheers!
Rich
 
M

Meltdarok

Jan 1, 1970
0
Rich the Philosophizer wrote, On 9/1/2007 3:19 PM:
Actually, the simplest answer is the truest one - the problem is,
"scientists" are denying up to half of what makes existence real.

They insist on externally measurable stuff. But when you're
listening to "The 1812 Overture" or "Claire de Lune", there's
no way to bottle up and measure the feeling of emotional
movement that you experience. But it's very, very real.

What's in a laugh? >:->

Well, I have to put you in an MRI machine and see what
part of your brain lights up--for starters. 0[;D
 
B

Bob Myers

Jan 1, 1970
0
Rich the Philosophizer said:
This is all well and good, but one of the things they're missing
is the fractal nature of everything. They're getting themselves
all mentally twisted up trying to fit a fractal uinverse into an
orthogonal model.

On what do you base the assumption of a "fractal"
universe, and how is it relevant to the question at
hand? If the universe truly were "fractal," it would
actually be a very strong reason AGAINST the notion
that one would have to study the "entire system" in
order to gain useful knowledge. The very nature of
a fractal structure means that any part, at any level,
effectively contains the whole.

Bob M.
 
J

Jonathan

Jan 1, 1970
0
Bob Myers said:
Why? How are you distinguishing "system properties" from
"part details."

For example, a 747 is a fairly complex system.


Not really. In comparison to real world complex dynamic
systems it's comparatively simple. The definition of the
word complex, as defined by complexity science, still
escapes you. A 747 is a very complicated system
on a linear scale from few to many.

Complex, the new meaning, is neither few or many.
It has too many variables for a Newtonian or classical
solution, but too few variables for a statistical or quantum
like solution. Complex behavior requires ...both...realms
of mathematics at the same time to fully describe the
behavior. That is why a behavior is called complex, since
both opposing realms of math is required. Simple now
becomes defined as that which can be solved with
just ...one or the other... realms of math.

Perhaps the simplest example of a complex system
would be a cloud. Where molecules are randomly
changing from liquid to vapor and back again.
A continuous sequence of step changes.
Even a tiny change in temp or pressure can have
cause the system to dramatically change forms.


One nut
taken from that same 747's gear assembly is clearly a
simple part. If I drop either the 747 or the nut, I will gain
the data necessary to describe how objects fall within a
gravitational field. The complexity of the 747 makes no
difference at all here; it would be relevant only if I wanted
to learn something about how the internal workings of
that system behave, as opposed to its gross externally-
visible properties. Moving up a few levels, I can also
observe/demonstrate the basic principles of aeronautics
through either watching that 747 in operation, watching
a Cessna 172 - although Cessna is undeniably a far simpler
system.

Just the opposite is true with real world systems. Again
this science is about how nature creates. Are the properties
of a forest or a society best displayed by the Congo or
your back yard? Is public opinion better judged by
large or small samples?

The basic difference between a man-made system and
natural systems which this science is about can be
seen this way. A man made system is one where the
goal or final product is envisioned ahead of time, and
the parts are constructed to fit the goal. Reverse
engineering nature.

A natural system allows the final product to emerge as
it will from the interaction of numerous autonomous agents.
A 747 and a society are opposites of each other.

One would think, from considering most examples that
come to mind, that the best way to "derive laws" would
be through the observation of the SIMPLEST system which
provides sufficient data to do so.


For man made systems sure, for natural systems not at all.


Or, in other words, one
should not bring in unnecessary complexity into an
experiment without having a good reason for doing so.


In natural systems, the ...complications..are added by
reducing in scale causing a proportional increase in
variables and interactions. You have to properly envision
what complexity now means. Imagine two variables
that are being pulled in opposite directions at all times.
And just so that neither direction wins, but a persistant tie.
The variable behavior becomes complex as it's future
behavior depends on the most delicate of future
changes. In short, the future of the variable cannot
be determined, in fact complexity is where there's
the least ability to determine the exact state of
an object or behavior.

Precisely; but you do not need the full system to demonstrate
or derive ALL of its properties, only those which might be
considered to be "emergent" at that level of complexity.
For anything less than this, you're better off studying simpler
systems, since they have less potential for generating
irrelevant problems which would complicate the study of
these more basic properties. For example, if I want again
wished to study the BASIC principles of flight, I may be
better off with a much simpler aircraft than a 747, for the
simple reason that it will be easier to operate, more reliable,
and therefore will more readily get me the necessary data.
I would need to turn to the 747, or something similar, though,
if I specifically wanted to study, say, the behavior of autoland
systems in multiengine jet airliners. The complexity of the
system being studied must be sufficient to provide the
relevant data, but certainly should be no more complex than
that. So we still have not justified a belief that we should
always seek the most complex system possible for study.


Certainly - and if you wanted to study those, you would
certainly need to look at a sufficiently complex market.
If, on the other hand, you merely wanted to study the very
basics of economic transactions, watching a child's lemonade
stand doing business may suffice.


Are you going to see panic behavior in a lemonade stand?
Or the effects of rumors? Emergent behavior is that which
is only a property of the whole. Behavior that is only seen
in a mob for instance, and nowhere else.

Yes - which again argues only for the need to study
complex systems in those cases where we are investigating
properties seen only in those systems, and not in simpler
cases.



Which "system properties" do this, and on what grounds do
you make the above assertion? Until you can identify
them, I am also not sure how you can get to the conclusion
that:


Tell me how much a market force weighs? How large is it?
Where can I find them? A market force only exists as a
part of the functioning whole. Not a single part of the entire
system will tell you what they are? As only the combined
interactions of all the parts produces them. We know
markets find a way of increasing efficiency, stability and
creativity. And with Adam Smith like invisible hands
these forces ...emerge...from the interaction of autonomous
agents and provide the long term guidance or direction
of the whole. It is the self tuning properties of nature that
created us and intelligence. And the physical universe.
First of all - "most important" in what context? On
what scale? As judged by whom?


Based on what is most responsible for the visible order
in the universe.

An example - the behavior of the force of gravity is
clearly a very important aspect of our universe, as
it controls the paths of moons, planets, stars, and even
entire galaxies; it literally shapes the universe. Yet the
"laws" which describe this behavior are actually rather
simple, and may to a very high degree of accuracy
be derived from observations of much simpler structures
than the universe as a whole. This, then, would seem to
be at least one example which contradicts the above
assertion. It may not be the case that ALL "important
behaviors" can be understood from the simpler cases,
but it is clear that at least one can, and I believe there are
other examples that will readily come to mind if you think
about it.


Lets compare two entirely different fields/things using
a system approach. Using the output of the whole
as the primary information instead of the part details.
Gravity and biological fitness.

One is a pervasive force for order in the physical
universe, and the other for the living world.

A gravity well vs a fitness landscape.
When systems become complex as described
above, standing persistantly poised at its
phase transition point, fitness peaks then
tend to clump together, and higher fitness
peaks have a larger basin of attraction.

A living system interacting randomly with its environment
is more likely to 'fall' into a region of higher fitness
than lower. Just like objects tend to fall together.

On the....input...side the two are as different as can
be...material vs living. On the output side they follow
essentially the ...same laws of organization.

Using the part details of each system as the first source
of knowledge leads to two entirely different sciences
each so unique such commonalites cannot be seen.
And this commonality is the primary guiding force
for the system, as you said with gravity. So it is
with biology. Just two vastly different scales of
complexity.

By looking first at the output side, the system properties
we see what is common between two systems.
By looking at the part details first we see what is
different. And very different, so different the two
fields can't really compare anything between them.
Physics and biology.


OK, so if this is true - what IS the single unified
description of the universe offered by this science?
If it is too complicated to outline here, then I would
submit that this strongly suggests that it is NOT a
fundamental behavior or "law," but instead is itself
derivable from simpler principles.


All order in the universe, physical or living, is the result
of a system that's persistantly poised at the phase
transition of its own opposite extremes in possibiliy.

Or, evolution of the physical and living worlds gets
it's impetus from complex behavior. Where the parts
cannot be precisely determined, and only the output
is predictable and repeatable. As with the relationship
between a forest and its components. The parts are
quite often acting randomly, so much so as to defy
prediction. While the output, the system properties
are stable and resilient...predictable and repeatable.

The laws and certainty all of us instinctively look for
only reside in the whole...the output of a large collection
of interacting autonomous agents. The larger the more
predictable...the more certain...the more informative
of the future.


In that case - how has "complexity science"
explained life?



What do you mean by the symbol "god?"


That which is as far above us, as we are above animals.
You have described your desired process, but I am
afraid this doesn't give us much to go on in terms of
why it should be preferred, or even what it actually means.
Why SHOULD "subjectivity replace objectivity"?


Again, it goes to the meaning of the word complexity.
The duality of light for instance. Light act as both a particle
and a wave, so it is a complex system. To objectively
measure it, it is reduced to ...either.. a particle or a wave.
It becomes simple when objectively observed.

But our existance and reality is based on the properties
of light when it's in a natural....complex...state.
It's the properties of the ...system...that define our reality.

Not the parts. Whenever you reduce or simplify to allow
objective measurements, the most important properties
the emergent properties, cannot be seen.

Only by observing the whole can the guiding self tuning
system properties responsible for the constant process
of evolution be seen. They cannot be measured, but
only known subjectively.


Unless you are using these terms differently in this context,
are you implying that there is NOT such a thing as a single,
shared, objective reality?


I'm stating there is no objective reality. Think of a ecosystem.
The components and the environment are coevolving.
Each constantly changing around each other.
Nothing stands still long enough to exactly quantify as
everything is constantly changing. It is only our
very arbitrary decisions on when and what to quantify
that allow any objective comparisons.

Objectivity measures the past and the simple.
Subjectivity measures the present and the complex.
And it is the complex that is the source of all order.


If that is the case - if the
universe fundamentally subjective rather than objective -
there is very little sense in discussing any of this in the
first place, since we can't possibly be assured of any
common ground on which to base descriptions which
would be useful to more than a single person.


Complexity science has found a way around that problem
as well. As this is a relativistic approach that includes
not excludes the observer.

In complexity science two people can easily make the same
subjective observations. As each system is compared not
to some independent yardstick, not to some other system.
But each system is compared to...itself.

It's very easy. The first thing to do when looking at a system
is to define it's opposite practical extremes in possibility space.

For instance, with a complex dynamic system such as the
stock market, thousands of autonomous agents interacting
in highly random and unpredictable ways. To find where a
variable becomes complex one merely observes the system
in operation and asks; "what are the practical, not theoretical
range of operation for that variable in the system being observed?"


Here's how it works. Systems display universal behavior when
the primary driving variables are all 'complex' at the same time.
Using the new defintion of complex as being midway between
opposite extremes so that the value has the least possible
predictive use. Which is when the variable or part displays
the least amount of certainty or ability to quantify.

With a stock chart you only have three variables, price, volume
and time frame. The simplest example possible.

The task is then to ...subjectively...determine the range of values
for each that defines the most complex state.

What is a complex price?

Observing market behavior, in general any price below a dollar
is a stock either entering or rising from oblivion.....one extreme
in possibility. And price over...say..ten dollars is considered a
stable company or a blue chip. The other extremes in possibility.
Another person may set the range of one extreme at below two
dollars and the blue chips at twenty. This subjective difference
doesn't matter much once one further constrains the analysis
with the other two remaining variables of volume and time.

What is a complex time frame?

Observing we find the day traders operate in spans of minutes and hours.
The opposite extreme, the longs, operate in spans of months and years.
So a complex time frame is that which is neither short or long.
Days and weeks is a complex time frame for the stock pattern to play out.
Five or ten day chart behavior defines the transition point between
opposite practical extremes in possibility.

And so on. When all the primary system variables are complex
the systems all behave in the same way. Or, when component
uncertainty is at it's highest, system output is at its simplest
and most predictable.

And btw, as with all evolving systems, this critical behavior brought
on by complexity is where predictability and volatility converge
to simulaneousl maximums. As in a thunderstorm, highly dynamic
yet, once we've seen enough cycle, very predictable.
 
B

Bob Myers

Jan 1, 1970
0
Perhaps the simplest example of a complex system
would be a cloud. Where molecules are randomly
changing from liquid to vapor and back again.
A continuous sequence of step changes.
Even a tiny change in temp or pressure can have
cause the system to dramatically change forms.

However, the overall behavior of the cloud can
most certainly be described, to a very high degree
of accuracy, by existing scientific principles. You
cannot predict with certainty the behavior of
individual particles, as there are too many variables
and too much "randomness" to track, but I see nothing
here that suggests your "complexity science" does any
better job of describing clouds than is already achieved.

Just the opposite is true with real world systems. Again
this science is about how nature creates. Are the properties
of a forest or a society best displayed by the Congo or
your back yard? Is public opinion better judged by
large or small samples?

The properties of a forest are clearly best demonstrated
by a forest; this much should be obvious, and has no
bearing on whether or not conventional science is valid.
Scientists DO study forests. As to the "large or small
samples" question - are you familiar with the term
"statistically significant"? Obviously, larger samples are
better than small samples - but just as obviously, there comes
a point where increasing the sample size does not result
in a sufficient gain in the quality of the data to be worth the
effort. If I have a box of 1,000,000 marbles, and I am
told that there is a roughly equal number of black and white
marbles in the mix, do I need to examine all one million to
verify this claim?
A natural system allows the final product to emerge as
it will from the interaction of numerous autonomous agents.
A 747 and a society are opposites of each other.

If you are claiming here that sociology is a field of study
which is of a different nature than aeronautical engineering,
I can't disagree. If this is not what you are claiming, then I
would have to say that your claim is less than clear.
For man made systems sure, for natural systems not at all.

It would depend on just what it is about "natural systems"
you are studying, would it not? The origina example I gave
had to do with gravity, which is most certainly something
which is exhibited by "natural systems," and something which
can be very, very accurately described from the observations
of very simple examples.
In natural systems,

You keep using this term "natural systems" as if there all
"natural systems" were by necessity impossibly complex, when
this clearly is not true, and as though nothing about natural
systems had ever been explained by conventional science -
which also is clearly not true. What science studies IS
"natural," and ONLY "natural" - there is no alternative. You
are correct in noting that man-made systems are designed,
and that this is a key feature of such systems - but they are
designed only through the application of the principles that
we have learned through observation of the natural world.
That these man-made designs function as expected, within this
natural, physical world, is prima facie evidence that our observations
are of value.
Are you going to see panic behavior in a lemonade stand?
Or the effects of rumors? Emergent behavior is that which
is only a property of the whole. Behavior that is only seen
in a mob for instance, and nowhere else.

If you do not see ALL possible behaviors at a given level
of scale, does that mean that the observations you CAN
make at that level are of no value?

As I already pointed out:
Tell me how much a market force weighs? How large is it?

Those questions are as nonsensical as asking how much the
color blue weighs, or what the opposite of the letter "A" is.
The question itself lacks meaning, and so is irrelevant and
shows nothing.
Where can I find them? A market force only exists as a
part of the functioning whole. Not a single part of the entire
system will tell you what they are? As only the combined
interactions of all the parts produces them. We know
markets find a way of increasing efficiency, stability and
creativity. And with Adam Smith like invisible hands
these forces ...emerge...from the interaction of autonomous
agents and provide the long term guidance or direction
of the whole. It is the self tuning properties of nature that
created us and intelligence. And the physical universe.

The first part of this simply agrees with what I said earlier,
about the need to study systems which ARE sufficiently
complex to show the quality or phenomenon of interest in
a given situation. The last two sentences are unsupported
assertion. WHAT "self-tuning properties?" "Tuning" FOR
what, and why? Demonstrate that these properties exist
in the first place, and you have a valid field of study. If this
is not possible, you have mere speculation.
Based on what is most responsible for the visible order
in the universe.

What is MOST responsible for the visible order in the
universe appears to be a very small number of relatively
simple principles, each of which may be derived from the
observation of fairly simple systems. In short, the universe
is shaped by the very same forces that shape its component
parts. There is absolutely zero evidence that some "super
principle," which ONLY applies at the scale of the universe
itself, is required to explain the universe. Which, again, is
what I was getting at in the following:
Lets compare two entirely different fields/things using
a system approach. Using the output of the whole
as the primary information instead of the part details.
Gravity and biological fitness.

[A good deal deleted]

I'm sorry, but I saw absolutely no real content in anything
you said in this section that would lead one to believe
that there was some principle at work which could ONLY
be detected at the universal scale. If this isn't what you're
trying to argue for here, then exactly what your point was
supposed to be also eludes me.

All order in the universe, physical or living, is the result
of a system that's persistantly poised at the phase
transition of its own opposite extremes in possibiliy.

Nicely-expressed notion. Why would one believe it?
What value does the above model provide which is not
offered by more conventional views?

That which is as far above us, as we are above animals.

"Above" in what sense? How far ARE we "above
animals"? What is the distinguishing difference, IN KIND,
between humans and animals, since the above statement
clearly implies that you believe there is one? Unless these
questions can be clearly answered, your statement has no
real meaning whatsoever.

Again, it goes to the meaning of the word complexity.
The duality of light for instance. Light act as both a particle
and a wave, so it is a complex system. To objectively
measure it, it is reduced to ...either.. a particle or a wave.
It becomes simple when objectively observed.

Light may be modelled as either a particle or a wave,
yes; I do not see how this causes it to qualify as a "complex
system." And in many measures of light, the wave vs.
particle nature is completely irrelevant.
Not the parts. Whenever you reduce or simplify to allow
objective measurements, the most important properties
the emergent properties, cannot be seen.

So you continue to assert; unfortunately, you have yet
to show any example where this makes any real
difference - where your supposed "complexity science"
explains something that conventional science cannot, or
at least provides a more accurate model.

I'm stating there is no objective reality.

Then, as noted, further discussion is useless. In the absence
of a shared objective reality, ANY description of whatever
"reality" there might be is utterly dependent on the individual
observer, and therefore useless for ANY purpose to any other.
For further information, please get thee to a freshman
philosophy class, and inquire about "solipsism."


Complexity science has found a way around that problem
as well. As this is a relativistic approach that includes
not excludes the observer.

If it has, then so far you have failed to demonstrate it.

Bob M.
 
S

Seon Ferguson

Jan 1, 1970
0
PureOne said:
Everyone knows that science has been proven wrong time and again

So what other alternatives do you propose we take on instead. Religion? lol
Seriously yes I know humans dont know anything, we probally only know about
2% of whats really out there. But they are no more decent alternatives.
 
T

Tom

Jan 1, 1970
0
Rich the Philosophizer said:
Yes - it's impossible to apprehend the beauty of the Mona Lisa
by analyzing the composition of paint molecules. >;->

I guess that depends on what you find beautiful.
 
T

Tom

Jan 1, 1970
0
Rich the Philosophizer said:
Actually, the simplest answer is the truest one - the problem is,
"scientists" are denying up to half of what makes existence real.

They insist on externally measurable stuff.

Like measuring "up to half of what makes existence real"? "Half" is, of
course, a measurement. So it seems that you would prefer to pull your
claims out of your ass and present them as if they were "measureable stuff"
even though it's really just some shit you made up on the spur of the
moment.
But when you're
listening to "The 1812 Overture" or "Claire de Lune", there's
no way to bottle up and measure the feeling of emotional
movement that you experience.

You can "bottle up" the 1812 Overture by recording it. Then you can let it
out of bottle whenever you like and it will be beautiful music every time.
You can "measure the feeling" by observing the reaction of your brain cells
with precision measuring devices as you listen and correlate them to your
reported experience of listening.

So you're wrong again.
 
J

John Larkin

Jan 1, 1970
0
Actually, the simplest answer is the truest one - the problem is,
"scientists" are denying up to half of what makes existence real.

You are complaining that scientists don't bother to measure things
that are unmeasurable, and don't try to explain things that are not
causal. That's just awful.
They insist on externally measurable stuff. But when you're
listening to "The 1812 Overture" or "Claire de Lune", there's
no way to bottle up and measure the feeling of emotional
movement that you experience. But it's very, very real.

Does listening to music make existance real? Do you think that
scientists don't listen to music?


John
 
B

Bob Myers

Jan 1, 1970
0
John Larkin said:
Does listening to music make existance real? Do you think that
scientists don't listen to music?

That does, though, always seem to be right at the top
of the list of the anti-science crowd - that studying things
from a scientific perspective somehow turns you into a
soulless automaton, incapable of feeling the joy and wonder
of ordinary existence.

Although, at least in my experience, exactly the opposite is
true - people get involved in science in the first place
BECAUSE of that sense of wonder, and it is in scientists
that I see it typically to a greater extent than in any other
sort of people.

Recommended reading: Carl Sagan's "Broca's Brain:
Reflections on the Romance of Science."

Bob M.
 
E

ExterminateAllRepubliKKKans

Jan 1, 1970
0
Rich the Philosophizer said:
They insist on externally measurable stuff. But when you're
listening to "The 1812 Overture" or "Claire de Lune", there's
no way to bottle up and measure the feeling of emotional
movement that you experience. But it's very, very real.

Really? How much does it weigh?
 
M

Meltdarok

Jan 1, 1970
0
ExterminateAllRepubliKKKans wrote, On 9/3/2007 1:27 PM:
Really? How much does it weigh?

They've never been able to weigh it, since all of the test
subjects balked at having it removed from their brains to
be measured.
 
R

Rich the Philosophizer

Jan 1, 1970
0
Rich the Philosophizer wrote, On 9/1/2007 3:19 PM:
Actually, the simplest answer is the truest one - the problem is,
"scientists" are denying up to half of what makes existence real.

They insist on externally measurable stuff. But when you're
listening to "The 1812 Overture" or "Claire de Lune", there's
no way to bottle up and measure the feeling of emotional
movement that you experience. But it's very, very real.

What's in a laugh? >:->

Well, I have to put you in an MRI machine and see what
part of your brain lights up--for starters. 0[;D

Can an MRI show you gut feelings?

Thanks,
Rich
 
R

Rich the Philosophizer

Jan 1, 1970
0
Like measuring "up to half of what makes existence real"? "Half" is, of
course, a measurement. So it seems that you would prefer to pull your
claims out of your ass and present them as if they were "measureable stuff"
even though it's really just some shit you made up on the spur of the
moment.


You can "bottle up" the 1812 Overture by recording it. Then you can let it
out of bottle whenever you like and it will be beautiful music every time.
You can "measure the feeling" by observing the reaction of your brain cells
with precision measuring devices as you listen and correlate them to your
reported experience of listening.

So you're wrong again.

No, actually, I'm right, because you're acknowledging that what happens
when it's listened to is something that happens internally with your
own physical self, and "Science" has no explanation for the mechanism
of how "Clair de Lune" causes you to feel joy or whatever, and "I'm
gonna kill yo bitch mama" causes you to feel distress, or a way to
objectively measure it, so they dismiss it.

There's more to reality than meets the measuring instrument. ;-)
http://www.godchannel.com/reality.html

Cheers!
Rich
 
R

Rich the Philosophizer

Jan 1, 1970
0
That does, though, always seem to be right at the top
of the list of the anti-science crowd - that studying things
from a scientific perspective somehow turns you into a
soulless automaton, incapable of feeling the joy and wonder
of ordinary existence.

Although, at least in my experience, exactly the opposite is
true - people get involved in science in the first place
BECAUSE of that sense of wonder, and it is in scientists
that I see it typically to a greater extent than in any other
sort of people.

Recommended reading: Carl Sagan's "Broca's Brain:
Reflections on the Romance of Science."

I don't disagree with anything either of you has said here. My complaint
is that when someone insists on "scientific proof" of everything, they
are dismissing out of hand exactly those intangibles that make life
distinguishable from inert matter.

The point is, I'm trying to make a big huge point, which is that
you'll never get a grand unified theory of everything while insisting
on excluding the intangibles just because they're intangible.

Hope This Helps!
Rich
 
R

Rich the Philosophizer

Jan 1, 1970
0
I guess that depends on what you find beautiful.

Well, it wasn't the molecules who decided to put that enigmatic little
half-smile on her face, was it? How did they plan it? How did each
molecule know what the others were doing?

For that matter, how do water molecules know which site on the snowflake
to condense onto? How does one arm (of the snowflake) know what the others
are doing?

Thanks!
Rich
 
J

John Larkin

Jan 1, 1970
0
I don't disagree with anything either of you has said here. My complaint
is that when someone insists on "scientific proof" of everything, they
are dismissing out of hand exactly those intangibles that make life
distinguishable from inert matter.

Who insists on "scientific proof of everything"? Few scientists, I
expect.
The point is, I'm trying to make a big huge point, which is that
you'll never get a grand unified theory of everything while insisting
on excluding the intangibles just because they're intangible.

If it's intangible, it ain't science.

John
 
Top