Mind the Gap Between Science and Religion

Discussions on the philosophical foundations, assumptions, and implications of science, including the natural sciences.

Mind the Gap Between Science and Religion

Postby socrat44 on September 16th, 2019, 8:34 am 

Mind the Gap Between Science and Religion
Posted By Sabine Hossenfelder on Sep 16, 2019
#
''Believing in an Omnipotent Programmer is not science—
it’s tech-bro monotheism.''
#
'' . . .faith in beautiful math has become pervasive
in the community. And that’s despite the fact that
relying on beauty as a guide to new natural laws
has historically worked badly: The mechanical
clockwork universe was once considered beautiful.
So were circular planetary orbits, and an eternally
unchanging universe.
All of which, it turns out, is wrong.''

http://nautil.us/blog/mind-the-gap-betw ... d-religion
====
socrat44
Member
 
Posts: 404
Joined: 12 Dec 2015
Dave_CTheVat liked this post


Re: Mind the Gap Between Science and Religion

Postby charon on September 16th, 2019, 1:53 pm 

One of these days they'll think of something new. Poor Sabine, has she just discovered all this? Where was she when Dawkins & Co were making a lot of noise?

You know, you can be just as conditioned by science as you can religion. I don't think that's widely appreciated.

Do you remember crop circles? Mysterious symbolic patterns appearing in fields of corn apparently from nowhere. No one could understand it. Pretty soon every Tom, Dick and Harriet were spouting their theories, especially the scientists. It was all about 'plasma vortices' and so on.

There were also the UFO people, the New Age people, the religious people, the witchcraft people, and all the rest of them. Each one of them interpreted the circles in terms of their own knowledge and discipline, which was very enlightening There were TV programmes, documentaries, all kinds of stuff.

Turned out they'd been made by two blokes called Doug and Dave. They went out in the moonlight and used a plank to flatten the corn. Circles were made by one of them holding a length of rope and walking round and straight lines by fixing on a tree or other object. They worked out their designs in the pub.

Great :-)
charon
Active Member
 
Posts: 1914
Joined: 02 Mar 2011


Re: Mind the Gap Between Science and Religion

Postby Dave_C on September 16th, 2019, 9:14 pm 

Do you think that's the appeal of string theory - beautiful math? I've heard it doesn't provide any testable predictions though I can't vouch for those accusations.
“Faced with difficulties in applying fundamental theories to the observed Universe,” they wrote, some scientists argue that “if a theory is sufficiently elegant and explanatory, it need not be tested experimentally”.

First among the topics discussed was testability. For a scientific theory to be considered valid, scientists often require that there be an experiment that could, in principle, rule the theory out — or ‘falsify’ it, as the philosopher of science Karl Popper put it in the 1930s. In their article, Ellis and Silk pointed out that in certain areas, some theoretical physicists had strayed from this guiding principle — even arguing for it to be relaxed.

The duo cited string theory as the principal example. The theory replaces elementary particles with infinitesimally thin strings to reconcile the apparently incompatible theories that describe gravity and the quantum world. The strings are too tiny to detect using today’s technology — but some argue that string theory is worth pursuing whether or not experiments will ever be able to measure its effects, simply because it seems to be the ‘right’ solution to many quandaries.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... y-science/
User avatar
Dave_C
Member
 
Posts: 331
Joined: 08 Jun 2014
Location: Allentown


Re: Mind the Gap Between Science and Religion

Postby socrat44 on September 16th, 2019, 9:42 pm 

@Dave_C
Maybe string theory is beautiful math, but it is also
emothional theory . . . because nobody showed the law
(X, Y, or Z) that can prove quantum particle must be ''string''
===
socrat44
Member
 
Posts: 404
Joined: 12 Dec 2015


Re: Mind the Gap Between Science and Religion

Postby charon on September 17th, 2019, 6:42 am 

Dave -

Good point, but do you mean to say that all those students studying string theory - and I've met many of them - are being duped in some way? That the only reason all those courses exist is because the subject is 'aesthetically pleasing'? I'd say that was nonsense, wouldn't you?

However, it's well known that ST has its limitations. Probably whenever an attempt is made to produce a theory of everything it'll run into trouble. I think as long as those limitations are made very clear the study of ST is permissible.

As for 'beautiful math', ST math is probably too complex to be really beautiful :-)
charon
Active Member
 
Posts: 1914
Joined: 02 Mar 2011


Re: Mind the Gap Between Science and Religion

Postby Dave_C on September 17th, 2019, 8:22 pm 

charon » September 17th, 2019, 5:42 am wrote:Dave -

Good point, but do you mean to say that all those students studying string theory - and I've met many of them - are being duped in some way? That the only reason all those courses exist is because the subject is 'aesthetically pleasing'? I'd say that was nonsense, wouldn't you?

I have no idea, I'm not a student, not in academia, I graduated college 30 years ago... However, the Sciam article is obviously saying some very specific things about string theory. What do you think?
User avatar
Dave_C
Member
 
Posts: 331
Joined: 08 Jun 2014
Location: Allentown


Re: Mind the Gap Between Science and Religion

Postby charon on September 17th, 2019, 10:03 pm 

I've just told you what I think.
charon
Active Member
 
Posts: 1914
Joined: 02 Mar 2011


Re: Mind the Gap Between Science and Religion

Postby socrat44 on September 18th, 2019, 8:00 am 

In 1900 Planck invented quantum particle of action as a ''point-particle''
After about 70 years it was decided a ''point-particle' is a bad image of
real quantum particle. The better image is a . . . ''string-particle'' . . . .
a) ''open-string'' in 11 dimensions, and . . .
b) ''closed-loop-string'' in 27 dimensions or, maybe, in. . . . M - dimension
''String-particles'' cannot be observed, it is only Math project . . . and the fact,
that the theory is ''Math Beauty'' only proves its Narcissistic reality
===
Attachments
S. P..jpg
socrat44
Member
 
Posts: 404
Joined: 12 Dec 2015


Re: Mind the Gap Between Science and Religion

Postby charon on September 18th, 2019, 8:22 am 

Planck invented


Oh well, if he invented it...
charon
Active Member
 
Posts: 1914
Joined: 02 Mar 2011


Re: Mind the Gap Between Science and Religion

Postby socrat44 on September 18th, 2019, 9:51 am 

charon » September 18th, 2019, 8:22 am wrote:
Planck invented


Oh well, if he invented it...


In 1900 Planck united together two formulas ( Rayleigh–Jeansfor
for long and Wien's for short wavelengths) and then divided them.
He was himself very surprised when the result was found correct.
Maybe some thousands physicists were satisfied with this result.
But the great Max Planck asked himself:
''Why this formula is correct ?
What does result mean? ''.
And after " . . . some weeks of the hardest work of my life . . ."
the result was – quantum of action (as energy multiply time: h=Et)
The coefficient (h) was neither in the Rayleigh–Jeansfor nor
in the Wien's formulas.
Planck invented unit (h) as in some books are written:
"intuitively, instinctively, phenomenological" . . . .
Planck didn't explain MATH details of (h) . . . .
. . . he took (h) '' from heaven '' . . . but . . .
. . . this coefficient of action somehow worked
===
Attachments
MAX PLANCK.jpg
socrat44
Member
 
Posts: 404
Joined: 12 Dec 2015


Re: Mind the Gap Between Science and Religion

Postby socrat44 on September 18th, 2019, 10:38 am 

charon » September 18th, 2019, 8:22 am wrote:
Planck invented


Oh well, if he invented it...


More details . . .
===
Max Karl Ernst Ludwig Planck
#
Planck described in his Nobel Lecture given on 2 June 1920,
how he made his discoveries.
' . . . 'eventually after some weeks of the hardest work of my life,
light entered the darkness, and a new inconceivable
perspective opened up before me. ... ''

Planck himself in [7] explains how despite having invented
quantum theory he did not understand it himself at first:-

''I tried immediately to weld the elementary quantum of action
somehow in the framework of classical theory.
But in the face of all such attempts this constant showed
itself to be obdurate ...
My futile attempts to put the elementary quantum of action into
the classical theory continued for a number of years and
they cost me a great deal of effort.''

http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/hist ... lanck.html
===
Attachments
M - P.jpg
socrat44
Member
 
Posts: 404
Joined: 12 Dec 2015


Re: Mind the Gap Between Science and Religion

Postby charon on September 18th, 2019, 11:02 am 

I know :-)
charon
Active Member
 
Posts: 1914
Joined: 02 Mar 2011


Re: Mind the Gap Between Science and Religion

Postby socrat44 on September 20th, 2019, 9:45 pm 

Max Planck
''Both religion and science require a belief in God. For believers, God is in the beginning, and for physicists He is at the end of all considerations… To the former He is the foundation, to the latter, the crown of the edifice of every generalized world view.
There can never be any real opposition between religion and science; for the one is the complement of the other. Every serious and reflective person realizes, I think, that the religious element in his nature must be recognized and cultivated if all the powers of the human soul are to act together in perfect balance and harmony. And indeed it was not by accident that the greatest thinkers of all ages were deeply religious souls.''
(“Religion and Natural Science” [lecture, 1937], Scientific Autobiography and Other Papers, trans. F. Gaynor [New York, 1949], 184)
https://www.navigatingdiscipleship.com/ ... -religion/
===
socrat44
Member
 
Posts: 404
Joined: 12 Dec 2015


Re: Mind the Gap Between Science and Religion

Postby charon on September 21st, 2019, 6:38 am 

Quite right.
charon
Active Member
 
Posts: 1914
Joined: 02 Mar 2011


Re: Mind the Gap Between Science and Religion

Postby A_Seagull on September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 pm 

socrat44 » September 17th, 2019, 12:34 am wrote:Mind the Gap Between Science and Religion
Posted By Sabine Hossenfelder on Sep 16, 2019
#
''Believing in an Omnipotent Programmer is not science—
it’s tech-bro monotheism.''
#
'' . . .faith in beautiful math has become pervasive
in the community. And that’s despite the fact that
relying on beauty as a guide to new natural laws
has historically worked badly: The mechanical
clockwork universe was once considered beautiful.
So were circular planetary orbits, and an eternally
unchanging universe.
All of which, it turns out, is wrong.''

http://nautil.us/blog/mind-the-gap-betw ... d-religion
====


Fron the referencerd article " According to our best current knowledge, the universe follows rules that are encoded by a set of equations".

It is not the 'best' current knowledge.

That is a form of naïve realism.

Fare better is : " The universe can be described by a set of rules that are encoded by a set of equations."
User avatar
A_Seagull
Member
 
Posts: 118
Joined: 29 Apr 2017


Re: Mind the Gap Between Science and Religion

Postby socrat44 on September 22nd, 2019, 8:19 pm 

According to our best current knowledge, the universe
follows rules that are encoded by a set of equations.
We don’t know these equations completely (yet!), but
you could rightfully say the universe computes in real time
whatever are the correct equations. In that sense,
we trivially “live in a computer,” but that’s just a funny way
to talk about the laws of nature.
http://nautil.us/blog/mind-the-gap-betw ... d-religion
'' . . . but you could rightfully say the universe computes
in real time whatever are the correct equations.''
http://nautil.us/blog/mind-the-gap-betw ... d-religion

A_Seagull » September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 pm wrote:[quote="[url=http://www.sciencechatforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=347455#p347455]

Fare better is : " The universe can be described by
a set of rules that are encoded by a set of equations."
socrat44
Member
 
Posts: 404
Joined: 12 Dec 2015


Re: Mind the Gap Between Science and Religion

Postby socrat44 on September 22nd, 2019, 8:28 pm 

'' . . . In that sense, we trivially “live in a computer,” but that’s
just a funny way to talk about the laws of nature. ''
http://nautil.us/blog/mind-the-gap-betw ... d-religion
. . . .
''And finally, if you are really asking whether our universe
has been programmed by a superior intelligence,
that’s just a badly concealed form of religion.
Since this hypothesis is untestable inside the supposed simulation, it’s not scientific. This is not to say it is in conflict with science.
You can believe it, if you want to. But believing in an omnipotent Programmer is not science—it’s tech-bro monotheism.
And without that Programmer, the simulation hypothesis is just a modern-day version of the 18th century clockwork universe, a sign of our limited imagination more than anything else.''
http://nautil.us/blog/mind-the-gap-betw ... d-religion

Is Universe a programmed system ?
Does Universe have place for an omnipotent Programmer ?
===
Attachments
Monkey.jpg
socrat44
Member
 
Posts: 404
Joined: 12 Dec 2015



Return to Philosophy of Science

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests