11 ms·

Technically oriented people tend to believe that science eventually can (and eventually will) explain everything including life, consciousness, time, .... They

Technically oriented people tend to believe that science eventually can (and eventually will) explain everything including life, consciousness, time, .... They have no understanding for the inherent and insurmountable limitations of science. I'd prefer more epistemology and less 'science fiction'.

cristianpascu 12y ago
This quote is delicious: “You start with a random clump of atoms, and if you shine light on it for long enough, it should not be so surprising that you get a plant.” :)
- trhway 12y ago
  “You start with a random clump of atoms, and if you shine light on it for long enough, it should not be so surprising that you get a computer.” :)
  - jessaustin 12y ago
    At some level of abstraction, a computer and a plant might be the same sort of thing. Incidentally, why was trhway's comment downvoted? It expresses a perfectly logical objection to the "plant" hypothesis.
cromwellian 12y ago
That there may be limits is not as interesting as what the limits actually are, which itself, may be an unsolvable problem. So it is useful to assume that there aren't limits, and press on. It's like someone telling you the Halting Theorem shows there are undecidable computations. This has never dissuaded a single engineer from working on better compiler optimizations, or even limited detection of halting behavior, it just shows the general problem is insoluble. Perhaps we may never be able to discover exactly how our life came about, or how the universe came about, but there are lots of other related questions narrower in scope that are just as valuable to answer. I'd say the philosophical justifications are frankly irrelevent. I know this rankles people, I've seen it rankle people debating Lawrence Krauss. They provide a good backwards justification for having logical confidence in our scientific endeavors, but really, science is about making predictions and if you come up with a theory that makes useful predictions, allows you to build things and conduct experiments with agree with the model, in other words, something that "works", the philosophical underpinnings are not going to cause anyone outside Philosophy departments to sweat. Thus, more useful than "how did OUR life actually evolve" which may be beyond the limits of the historical data or our ability to analyze, other questions are "are other kinds of life possible", and "how can other kinds of life evolve". If there's a useful theory of how other kinds of life can come about, and if we can actually test it with experiments, and actually create this life, then I'd say the "science fiction" of believing that science can answer the really tough questions, and drove physicists to actually solve a sub-problem, was a worthy bit of cultural driving force. In other words, give me my beliefs in space empires, and warp travel. It inspires me, and others, into science, and useful endeavors, even if the primary goal (FTL) is impossible.
- trhway 12y ago
  >even if the primary goal (FTL) is impossible i always curious why we say that when there are right in front of our eyes evidence to the contrary - galaxies moving away with speeds higher than the light speed. FTL is impossible only in SR - ie. in the static continuous space-time - which is only approximation (and not really true) of the real space-time.
  - cromwellian 12y ago
    Yes, if you permit (human controlled/manipulated) space warping. It is currently unknown if this can actually be engineered due to the requirements for exotic matter. Sure, a primordial wormhole could just "exist" and we could use it, but the more exciting question is whether or not we can warp space without astronomical, uneconomical, and unknown, exotic masses.
  - thret 12y ago
    They aren't moving FTL locally. Space itself is expanding - so galaxies really far away are being pushed away FTL but they're not actually 'moving' FTL. They couldn't travel that fast towards us, or indeed towards anything.
    - trhway 12y ago
      >are being pushed away FTL but they're not actually 'moving' FTL. They couldn't travel that fast towards us, or indeed towards anything. it is kind like saying that because all stones fall down, one can't fly or jump. Like stone falling down, space expansion (cooling down) is an entropy increasing process. What we know is that any entropy increasing process can be reversed by applying energy (which gets obtained by even more increasing of entropy somewhere else).
- collyw 12y ago
  "So it is useful to assume that there aren't limits, and press on." Faith in science.
  - 12y ago
threeseed 12y ago
Much of what was science fiction a hundred years ago is now a reality. It's not inconceivable that much of what we consider science fiction today will be a reality in a hundred years time.
- collyw 12y ago
  Many of the things that we expected to become reality by now 20 years ago are still miles off.
- ExpiredLink 12y ago
  'Science fiction' was the wrong term, 'science mythology' would have been more appropriate.
philh 12y ago
> They have no understanding for the inherent and insurmountable limitations of science. Suppose that science can never explain consciousness. Can you (or anyone) explain why science can never explain consciousness? If not, in what sense do you claim to understand the limitations of science? It sounds to me like you're just assuming that these are the limitations. (We know a lot about the limitations of science. Science can't produce a rocket that goes faster than light, for example. Currently we don't know enough about consciousness to know what the limitations of science are with respect to it.)
- collyw 12y ago
  You can't observe an experience. You experience conciseness, you don't observe it. How can science work with something that you can't observe, and therefore can't measure?
  - noselasd 12y ago
    Why would science never be able to observe or measure an experience ?
    - collyw 12y ago
      prove there is no God.
      - noselasd 12y ago
        Sorry ? What are you talking about, and why would proving there is no God have anything to do with that ?
        collyw 12y ago
        Your line of reasoning is pretty much the same as a religious person asking an atheist to prove three is no God. Of course that will be impossible to prove. The religious person is the one claiming something without and reasoning or evidence. Therefore the onus is on them to prove that God exists, rather than the atheist to prove he doesn't. There is no evidence to suggest that science will be able to observe an experience, so the onus is on you to prove that its a reasonable suggestion.
tjradcliffe 12y ago
> They have no understanding for the inherent and insurmountable limitations of science Science is the discipline of publicly testing ideas via systematic observation, controlled experiment, and Bayesian inference. Notice there is no limit on the nature of the ideas. Anyone who says "science only deals with matter" is saying "I don't understand science." Science is a discipline, a practice, not a method or a specific body of knowledge. The practice of the discipline of science is our only means of producing new knowledge and discarding old knowledge. So I'm not sure what these inherent limitations you're talking about are. If and idea can't be tested by systematic observation, controlled experiment or Bayesian inference then it must be an idea that has no consequences of any kind, which is to say: an idea that is boring. Otherwise, if it has consequences, it can be tested using the discipline of science, and some Bayesian statement made regarding its plausibility.
crimsonalucard 12y ago
There hasn't been a scientific study on the limitations of science, so really whether it is limited or unlimited... nobody knows.

cristianpascu 12y ago

This quote is delicious: “You start with a random clump of atoms, and if you shine light on it for long enough, it should not be so surprising that you get a plant.” :)

trhway 12y ago
“You start with a random clump of atoms, and if you shine light on it for long enough, it should not be so surprising that you get a computer.” :)
- jessaustin 12y ago
  At some level of abstraction, a computer and a plant might be the same sort of thing. Incidentally, why was trhway's comment downvoted? It expresses a perfectly logical objection to the "plant" hypothesis.

cromwellian 12y ago

That there may be limits is not as interesting as what the limits actually are, which itself, may be an unsolvable problem. So it is useful to assume that there aren't limits, and press on. It's like someone telling you the Halting Theorem shows there are undecidable computations. This has never dissuaded a single engineer from working on better compiler optimizations, or even limited detection of halting behavior, it just shows the general problem is insoluble. Perhaps we may never be able to discover exactly how our life came about, or how the universe came about, but there are lots of other related questions narrower in scope that are just as valuable to answer. I'd say the philosophical justifications are frankly irrelevent. I know this rankles people, I've seen it rankle people debating Lawrence Krauss. They provide a good backwards justification for having logical confidence in our scientific endeavors, but really, science is about making predictions and if you come up with a theory that makes useful predictions, allows you to build things and conduct experiments with agree with the model, in other words, something that "works", the philosophical underpinnings are not going to cause anyone outside Philosophy departments to sweat. Thus, more useful than "how did OUR life actually evolve" which may be beyond the limits of the historical data or our ability to analyze, other questions are "are other kinds of life possible", and "how can other kinds of life evolve". If there's a useful theory of how other kinds of life can come about, and if we can actually test it with experiments, and actually create this life, then I'd say the "science fiction" of believing that science can answer the really tough questions, and drove physicists to actually solve a sub-problem, was a worthy bit of cultural driving force. In other words, give me my beliefs in space empires, and warp travel. It inspires me, and others, into science, and useful endeavors, even if the primary goal (FTL) is impossible.

trhway 12y ago
>even if the primary goal (FTL) is impossible i always curious why we say that when there are right in front of our eyes evidence to the contrary - galaxies moving away with speeds higher than the light speed. FTL is impossible only in SR - ie. in the static continuous space-time - which is only approximation (and not really true) of the real space-time.
- cromwellian 12y ago
  Yes, if you permit (human controlled/manipulated) space warping. It is currently unknown if this can actually be engineered due to the requirements for exotic matter. Sure, a primordial wormhole could just "exist" and we could use it, but the more exciting question is whether or not we can warp space without astronomical, uneconomical, and unknown, exotic masses.
- thret 12y ago
  They aren't moving FTL locally. Space itself is expanding - so galaxies really far away are being pushed away FTL but they're not actually 'moving' FTL. They couldn't travel that fast towards us, or indeed towards anything.
  - trhway 12y ago
    >are being pushed away FTL but they're not actually 'moving' FTL. They couldn't travel that fast towards us, or indeed towards anything. it is kind like saying that because all stones fall down, one can't fly or jump. Like stone falling down, space expansion (cooling down) is an entropy increasing process. What we know is that any entropy increasing process can be reversed by applying energy (which gets obtained by even more increasing of entropy somewhere else).
collyw 12y ago
"So it is useful to assume that there aren't limits, and press on." Faith in science.
- 12y ago

threeseed 12y ago

Much of what was science fiction a hundred years ago is now a reality. It's not inconceivable that much of what we consider science fiction today will be a reality in a hundred years time.

collyw 12y ago
Many of the things that we expected to become reality by now 20 years ago are still miles off.
ExpiredLink 12y ago
'Science fiction' was the wrong term, 'science mythology' would have been more appropriate.

philh 12y ago

> They have no understanding for the inherent and insurmountable limitations of science. Suppose that science can never explain consciousness. Can you (or anyone) explain why science can never explain consciousness? If not, in what sense do you claim to understand the limitations of science? It sounds to me like you're just assuming that these are the limitations. (We know a lot about the limitations of science. Science can't produce a rocket that goes faster than light, for example. Currently we don't know enough about consciousness to know what the limitations of science are with respect to it.)

collyw 12y ago
You can't observe an experience. You experience conciseness, you don't observe it. How can science work with something that you can't observe, and therefore can't measure?
- noselasd 12y ago
  Why would science never be able to observe or measure an experience ?
  - collyw 12y ago
    prove there is no God.
    - noselasd 12y ago
      Sorry ? What are you talking about, and why would proving there is no God have anything to do with that ?
      - collyw 12y ago
        Your line of reasoning is pretty much the same as a religious person asking an atheist to prove three is no God. Of course that will be impossible to prove. The religious person is the one claiming something without and reasoning or evidence. Therefore the onus is on them to prove that God exists, rather than the atheist to prove he doesn't. There is no evidence to suggest that science will be able to observe an experience, so the onus is on you to prove that its a reasonable suggestion.

tjradcliffe 12y ago

> They have no understanding for the inherent and insurmountable limitations of science Science is the discipline of publicly testing ideas via systematic observation, controlled experiment, and Bayesian inference. Notice there is no limit on the nature of the ideas. Anyone who says "science only deals with matter" is saying "I don't understand science." Science is a discipline, a practice, not a method or a specific body of knowledge. The practice of the discipline of science is our only means of producing new knowledge and discarding old knowledge. So I'm not sure what these inherent limitations you're talking about are. If and idea can't be tested by systematic observation, controlled experiment or Bayesian inference then it must be an idea that has no consequences of any kind, which is to say: an idea that is boring. Otherwise, if it has consequences, it can be tested using the discipline of science, and some Bayesian statement made regarding its plausibility.

crimsonalucard 12y ago

There hasn't been a scientific study on the limitations of science, so really whether it is limited or unlimited... nobody knows.