Recommended Posts
nerdgirl 0
Do you mean a descriptive or physically explicative “why,” meaning, or significance?
Or do you mean a motivational, intentional, or rational-acting significance?
I.e., what, if I read correctly, [deibido]’s response to you is asking.
Now, using fancy theories with all their math, we can design airplanes and computers and suspension bridges, so we know it works. But does it EXPLAIN anything about the universe. I say no.
I don’t understand what you mean? Do macroscale explanations extend to astronomical limits? Those “fancy theories” explain observed physical behavior of the Universe. You gave a number of examples. So, yes a lot about the Universe is explained.
Historically, has the approach generally been inductive? Yes, to some extent, largely because of limitations on human and machine capabilities for processing and capacity.
At some level, there are things that could be different, and we don't know why. (For example, saying that mass warps space and results in the appearance of gravity just peels one more layer of the onion.)
And what is the origin of that observation of differences between our observations and theoretical (predictive) understandings? I assert the problem is ultimately our limit of resolution and capabilities.
For example, Bose-Einstein condensates (BECs) were theorized by an Indian physicist and Albert Einstein in the 1920s. Over 70 years later, Wolfgang Ketterle (MIT) and folsk at U Colorado/NIST Lab first experimentally demonstrated BECs. We didn’t change the Universe, the Universe didn’t change for us, but those theoretically-derived explanations by Bose and Einstein did describe phenomena that could not be experimentally demonstrated until long after both of their deaths.
We have some equation that says that an electron is held in a hydrogen atom with so much energy. We still don't know why.
I think you’re referring to ionizing energy, yes? The general ‘why’ is electrostatics. Something like this.
The specific why (on one level) is found in Schrödinger’s equations (time independent is the easiest to solve for H-atom). Depending on what you want to do (predict/explain/interpret) with that information there are other theoretical explanations (theory in the precise scientific meaning not the vernacular “speculative guess” usage) from VSEPR theory for explaining molecular geometries in covalently bonded molecules to quantum field theory (QFT) for sub-atomic behaviors.
Underlying what you're asking are another couple questions that I find interesting spanning philosophy and neural science:
Is it a human trait to try to find, discover, or assign meaning to things that just are? Why do we humans do that?
... & is there an underlying neuro-biochemical explanation?
VR/Marg
Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying
nerdgirl 0
Good question, imo, that gets to the core of a lot of the debate and differences.
VR/Marg
Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying
billvon 2,991
> nothing?
Literal fabric? Never. Bits and pieces? All the time; refer to the Casimir effect.
If your position is "everything came from something and thus I will call that something God" that's fine. But you risk a gradual whittling away of your conception of God as we understand that more and more of the universe happened that way because it had to.
argyle 0
Do you mean a descriptive or physically explicative “why,” meaning, or significance?
Or do you mean a motivational, intentional, or rational-acting significance?
I.e., what, if I read correctly, [deibido]’s response to you is asking.
Neither. The "descriptive or physically explicative" explanation is what we do so well. I don't believe that there is a "motivational...." explanation. I am talking about the real 'why'. I suppose it's like asking where the universe came from.
For example, we understand the forces that hold the solar system and galaxies together pretty well. The equation (Einstein's) has some geometry stuff on one side and the mass distribution on the other side. It gives us gravity, black holes, and the shape of the universe. If you read about how Einstein came up with it, as much as he wrote, it was his idea of logic, beauty, and simplicity. Bottom line is that it works as far as we can test it. So why do matter and geometry interact like this? This is the ultimate question. This is the 'why'. We just don't know.
So, yes a lot about the Universe is explained.
Well, here it is. By 'explained', you mean you have an equation. Quantum mechanics is governed by Schroedinger's equation. Schroedinger and his buddies in the 20's just kept trying different modifications to known equations until they came up with something that worked. (He got there first.) Not only did they not understand the equation, but we still have trouble with what it all means. The equations work, but the 'why' is not even close. Quantum mechanics seems strange to us, yet it runs the universe.
And what is the origin of that observation of differences between our observations and theoretical (predictive) understandings? I assert the problem is ultimately our limit of resolution and capabilities.
Let's use your example of Bose-Einstein condensation. I am not talking about whether we can measure it or create it. The point is that the effect is due to the 'spin' of particles. Now, spin, is not really spin, but some property that was named spin when people first introduced it. The elementary particle guys have some good ideas, but still, 'why' do some particles have integer spin? Who knows? String theory is an attempt at getting deeper, but to me it looks contrived and way too complicated.
I think you’re referring to ionizing energy, yes? The general ‘why’ is electrostatics.
Ok, so here is a good example. (It's not static, but ok.) Classical electrostatics is just a formula which works. It doesn't 'explain' anything. Electrical force can be understood as an exchange of virtual photons which brings in quantum mechanics which brings in everything we know. Still, same ultimate questions.
My point is philosophy, not engineering. The ancient could predict positions of the planets pretty well, but had no clue what they were looking at. We can create B-E condensates, but cannot explain why there are bosons.
My favorite is still the one about light chasing you at the speed of light. That one fact is responsible for all of relativity, which ultimately is responsible for gravity and the universe. And yet, it is weird and did not have to be that way.
Einstein wrote a lot about religion and god, but certainly did not believe in the god of our religions. I think his god was the place where the answers are kept.
Sorry about the number of words here. Also sorry if this is too obtuse. Weather is bad.
Art
argyle 0
We still don't know why.
Outside of the human thirst for meaning, is there any why?
Humans may thirst for the why, but the answer is there whether we get it or not. In some cases we humans can't handle the truth.
deibido 0
Humans may thirst for the why, but the answer is there whether we get it or not.
You say "why does light chase us at the speed of light?", but does the light need a why?
You can keep asking why to every answer, eventually you get back to the same point, "why is there anything instead of nothing?"
"Searching for meaning is like riding an ox,
in search of an ox."
In some cases we humans can't handle the truth.
________________________________________________
The most merciful thing in the world, I think, is the inability of the human mind to correlate all its contents. We live on a placid island of ignorance in the midst of black seas of infinity, and it was not meant that we should voyage far. The sciences, each straining in its own direction, have hitherto harmed us little; but some day the piecing together of dissociated knowledge will open up such terrifying vistas of reality, and of our frightful position therein, that we shall either go mad from the revelation or flee from the light into the peace and safety of a new dark age.
-H.P. Lovecraft "The Call of Cthulhu"
_________________________________________________
Humans may thirst for the why, but the answer is there whether we get it or not.
You say "why does light chase us at the speed of light?", but does the light need a why?
You can keep asking why to every answer, eventually you get back to the same point, "why is there anything instead of nothing?"
"Searching for meaning is like riding an ox,
in search of an ox."
In some cases we humans can't handle the truth.
________________________________________________
The most merciful thing in the world, I think, is the inability of the human mind to correlate all its contents. We live on a placid island of ignorance in the midst of black seas of infinity, and it was not meant that we should voyage far. The sciences, each straining in its own direction, have hitherto harmed us little; but some day the piecing together of dissociated knowledge will open up such terrifying vistas of reality, and of our frightful position therein, that we shall either go mad from the revelation or flee from the light into the peace and safety of a new dark age.
-H.P. Lovecraft "The Call of Cthulhu"
_________________________________________________
Thats the fun of science for me. If the truth was so insane it drove us mad, i think i'd still like to know. I definitely wouldn't want to stay in a state of ignorance just so i don't get scared.
GreyLake 0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yu_moia-oVI
I've never known anyone to articulate on these matters so simply and convincingly.
maadmax 0
No whittling. God is the source of everything. Everything flows form God in its own unique way.
And everything will return to God in its own unique way.
...
deibido 0
No whittling. God is the source of everything. Everything flows form God in its own unique way.
And everything will return to God in its own unique way.
The motion of the Way is to return;
The use of the Way is to accept;
All things come from the Way,
And the Way comes from nothing.
billvon 2,991
It's been going on for a long time. God once supported the heavens and created everything from formlessness. Now we know how the planets formed. God once created us from dust. Now we know that's not true - even IDers admit that some form of evolution got us here. This will continue in the future as we learn more about the natural world.
Now we know how the planets formed.
No we don't. There's theories and inferences.
God once created us from dust. Now we know that's not true
No we don't. And actually, the Bible says he created us in his image. There's no mention of creating us from dust in Genesis.
- even IDers admit that some form of evolution got us here.
That doesn't mean God doesn't exist. The first chapter of Genesis says all the creatures in the sea and air were created first. Then the land creatures. Then humans. Maybe evolution played a great role in that. Maybe it didn't. Evolution's existence is not mutally exclusive from God's existence.
This will continue in the future as we learn more about the natural world.
Science doesn't explain away God. The percentage of religious people in the world does not decrease each year, even with the advent of new theories.
--------------------------------------------------
Stay positive and love your life.
billvon 2,991
Sorry, should have said "we know the basic physical processes that created the planets, and they did not involve the earth being created before the rest of the universe."
>There's no mention of creating us from dust in Genesis.
Genesis 2:7 - "And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being."
>That doesn't mean God doesn't exist.
I agree! It is neither proof of his existence nor his absence.
>The first chapter of Genesis says all the creatures in the sea and air were
>created first. Then the land creatures. Then humans.
Not quite accurate according to Genesis 2. It clearly lists the order. Garden of Eden first, then man, then trees, then cattle and all other animals, then woman.
Now, you could argue all day over whether Genesis 1 or Genesis 2 is more accurate. But that's pointless; it's not a history or science book.
>Maybe evolution played a great role in that. Maybe it didn't. Evolution's
>existence is not mutally exclusive from God's existence.
I agree there also.
Science doesn't explain away God. The percentage of religious people in the world does not decrease each year, even with the advent of new theories.
Are you sure of this? I know very few people who attend church on Sundays.
rhys 0
Again, I do not think it fits Evolution, rather mutation.
Same thing. Mutation + natural selection = evolution.
I don't believe in Jeevus, or any so god that has been explained to me, you would have to be an idiot to believe that crap.
That is not to say there is not a creator of some kind, I imagine a great flaming mass of energy in the middle of the universe, if there is a middle, but who really knows.
I believe in evolution and that seemed straight forward untill I found out about 'Bacterial Flagellum'
http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/irreducible_complexity_01.html
These things go completely against darwins theory, but do not make God any more feasable.
Quite, a complex conversation but simple in theory.
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites