<img src="http://www.worldofescher.com/jpgs/A20.jpg"></img> <img src="http://www.worldofescher.com/jpgs/A13.jpg"></img> IMO these two images by M.C. Escher both beautifully express why IMO it is an impossibility for science or humans to ever put their fingers on the ultimate truth (at least with the mind)! Simply put we are not separate entities and as such I feel it is an impossibility to ever define "it" because we cannot cut ourselves off from "it".... PEACE and good trading, Commisso
I wouldn't be too fast to jump to that conclusion FPC. Science is the search for truth. People in other disciplines have also been searching for truth for a very long time, just in their own way. Scientists have a method they use to establish truth and have levels of truth that run the spectrum from unproven ideas to generally accepted truths. Science may arrive closer and closer to the ultimate truth but just as the hyperbolic curve never quite reaches infinity, science will never quite comprehend the big picture. Science works through logic based on observation. However there is much that is unobservable or is so infrequently observable so that the logic may be flawed due to not enough observations. If something is unobservable then by definition it will not be able to be proven by the scientific method. This doesn't mean that this something isn't true, just that science can't prove or disprove it and so it will never become scientifically accepted. In other words, science ISN'T the fountain of all truth and even the "truth" that is generally accepted today by science may be disproved later. Scientific truth is transitory. Thus science isn't ever going to provide any kind of moral or ethical bedrock upon which to build your life. That's all I'm saying. But I will concede one point. Scientists create the coolest gadgets.
<img src="http://a112.g.akamai.net/7/1112/492/20020509/www.wired.com/news/images/thumbs/macw_14_t.jpg"width= 125 height=100></img>
bad example. nothing in QM is contradictionary -- it's a perfectly consistent theory. the reality on quantum scale just happens to be different from our everyday "macro-reality". you are right about inherent paradoxes in mathematics though. i think the more correct way of putting it would be that reality would not be logical to you otherwise. implying that everybody should believe in god lest their worlds fall apart is a very bold claim that borders on intolerance, IMHO. i for one have yet to feel the need for god to fill the blanks in my existence. i have no problem with accepting that there may be things science will never be able to explain. i agree with you that science "only" provides information, quality of life, and consumer goods, but (and that's a big but) i think you are grossly underestimating what can fall into the first category -- information. to me it is obvious that moral and ethical guidelines rise from need to coexist in a society. to say that god is the only thing preventing me from killing myself ignores the simple fact that i, like other living beings on this planet, have been wired by evolution to appreciate my life and cling onto it. to imply that humans are fundamentally superior to animals (as in "without (the acceptance god) we'd be nothing but animals") is arrogant and "species-ist". YMMV of course. but that's my point, really. - jaan
species ist? omg...it's working. imho, to imply that man is nothing more than an animal requires a diligent denial of historical, scientific, and anecdotal testimony. And, it has the most suicidal consequences, when extrapolated to logical extremes as things often are.
well said. Our reality is only defined by our perceptions. Our perceptions are extremely limited, but still a part of the whole. For example, our human vision only perceives a very small subset of the total electromagnetic spectrum. Just because something is not seen, it doesn't mean it is not there, or it is not real. Everything is relative. Unless we reach a point that we can perceive everything that is and everything that it isn't we cannot know what we do not know. And even if we get there, what is beyond that point? Josh
are you categorically denying the existence of anything beyond your perception? let's see if i can get a handle on the implications.... You have made yourself the arbiter of all things: 'If I can't perceive it it either doesn't exist or it doesn't matter.' Isn't it a contradiction to say that there is electromagnetic phenomena beyond the ability of the eye to perceive and at the same time say that if it's beyond perception, it either doesn't matter or doesn't exist? What about a person who was born blind. Is the material world non-existent to him, beyond what he can touch? If it is nonexistent to him, what world do you dwell in? Whose perception is the most accurate? While you're not perceiving ultraviolet light, it's cooking your skin. So we have on the one hand, one post saying men are nothing but animals, and on the other a claim that man's perception is the definition of all things. And, I suppose these two folks consider themselves in agreement. If you do not perceive each other, do you really exist? If an animal doesn't perceive you, do you exist? Try telling the IRS that you don't exist. When you get into a bad trade, call the floor and say, 'What trade? I don't exist.'
Bro re-read the guys post... "For example, our human vision only perceives a very small subset of the total electromagnetic spectrum. Just because something is not seen, it doesn't mean it is not there, or it is not real." ~Josh-B~ Chasin do you even read the post before you reply? PEACE and good trading, Commisso
yes i do. but sometimes not well enough. thanks. I won't delete the post. I'll take my medicine. wait.... The man said, "Everything is relative." That doesn't jive with your snippet. I'm not embarassed anymore; ambiguity begets misunderstanding. Maybe he can set me straight on what he is trying to say.