Is man 'programmed' to seek a 'god'?

[Ziggy Stardust]

But that answer does not satisfy anyone's curiosity and is not scientific at all - even though produced by scientists - as it is not backed up by any proofs.

It is scientific. It being scientific doesn't make it truth. But science needs observations to start working it's magic. Without observations, science considers it non-existing. If you take Dark Matter, the observation that spawned the concept Dark Matter is the movement stars within galaxies. Dark Matter is nothing more as: This is what's missing to make the gravity theory work in that sort of scale.

Absence of proof means science regards it as non-existing. This does not mean it doesn't exist, but it doesn't exist in the realm in which science operates. The observable and measurable realm.

edit: By the way, could you please use the

button. In your post it's not clear what the context is of the post you're replying to, and it did matter in that occasion. I'd appreciate it.

edit 2: With regard to what was before the Big Bang (this was the context I was talking about) there are hypothesis which do enter for instance in Theoretical Physics, but because those hypothesis don't make it all the way through the scientific process, they don't exist in science.

This touches on one something that blew my mind when I first heard about it:
Earth's atmosphere is mostly transparent, and we're lucky that it is.

Seems unimportant, but it's not. Imagine if the cloud cover was enough to prevent us from seeing the sun - like an overcast day all the time, day and night. There'd be enough energy for photosynthesis (albeit not as much as we enjoy now), but we wouldn't be able to see the stars or the moon or the sun. Just think for a moment about all the things humans have done that were inspired by looking up: No Astronomy, No Sky Gods, No Astrophysics, No Spectral Analysis, No dreams of travelling to the moon....

Curiosity is precious, and we're lucky to have a transparent atmosphere.

Makes me wonder about 'intelligent' subterranean alien life. Maybe their vision and dreams are turned inward towards that strange hot place that sits at the core of their planet. Maybe it would turn them to inwards looking science and maybe they would be better equipped to intuitively understand atomic science.

Maybe.

 

[Domen]

Ziggy Sturdust:

Just short answer since I'm running out of time and there were so many references to my posts:

The more answers we get the more angles it gives us to discover.

Yes I agree. Yet Socrates said "I know that I know nothing."

And - sadly or not - this saying is still valid in modern times. Even though some think differently.

New answers generate new questions. Yet it doesn't mean that we will never be able to find that "final" answer.

It is scientific. It being scientific doesn't make it truth. But science needs observations to start working it's magic. Without observations, science considers it non-existing.

Here there were no any observations (as we are not able to observe things before the Bing Bang), rather just a bunch of various hypothesis.

And to be honest - I once heard a hypothesis of Steven Hawking on "how did the Big Bang happen", but I didn't find it convincing at all.

Hypothesis is - of course - also a "scientific thing" (although not specific to just science) - but different from theory.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

The day we find the final answer will be a sad one indeed.

About your other point, I can't tell if you're agreeing with me or not

 

[Domen]

About your other point, I can't tell if you're agreeing with me or not

Depends what you mean by "observations".

A hypothesis on what was before the Big Bang can't be based on proper observations, as our current science is not advanced enough to observe what was before (as there was no light in this form as we know it before the Big Bang, and observations are possible thanks to light).

Absence of proof means science regards it as non-existing. This does not mean it doesn't exist, but it doesn't exist in the realm in which science operates. The observable and measurable realm.

And this would be why science thinks there was nothing before the Big Bang.

And this would be why mixing science into a discussion about God is not exactly good, because science operates in different realm than religion (science operates mainly in realm of hard proofs, religion operates mainly in realm of faith).

edit 2: With regard to what was before the Big Bang (this was the context I was talking about) there are hypothesis which do enter for instance in Theoretical Physics, but because those hypothesis don't make it all the way through the scientific process, they don't exist in science.

So the telecast in which a scientist - Steven Hawking - expressed his hypothesis on what was before the Big Bang was not a scientific program?

You disappointed me!

The day we find the final answer will be a sad one indeed.

Even if the answer will be happy? Yeah, probably. Because we like discovering new things.

edit: By the way, could you please use the button

Ok. Since now on.

 

[El_Machinae]

The main reason why there's the prediction that 'nothing existed before the Big Bang' is because initial modeling of cosmology suggested that it was a reasonable conclusion. Since then, a variety of new theoretical paradigms (capable of explaining and predicting our current universe) have shown up, and some of these allow for the question 'what was before the Big Bang'? We don't know which of these theories is the most correct, but continued observation will allow pruning of theories as time goes on.

It feels like the question is unknowable, but that's not a good reason to assume that it is. For example, we used to think it unknowable if we could predict the size of the 'real' universe beyond our light-bubble. Since then, a variety of measurements have been created that fine-tune our answer.

 

[Souron]

It's not just the fact that the suggestion came first. It's the simplest answer to "how did the condition of the early universe come to be?" Alternative hypothesis give more complex answers, but it's possible that they may be more reasonable then the current model if they are part of a larger framework that explains other unknown aspects of our world.

That said, Occam's Rasor is a philosophical argument for selecting what to believe. If there is another philosophical reason to consider time to lack a beginning, then it may win out over Occam. This would make no-start-of-time theories more appealing.

 

[Rashiminos]

Not so much programmed as inspired under certain circumstances. Or rather, the inspiration and programming lead to different ends, unless we find out who the programmers are.

There's also the touchy subject of what sort of "man" we're actually referring to here.

 

[warpus]

Here there were no any observations (as we are not able to observe things before the Bing Bang), rather just a bunch of various hypothesis.

You don't need first-hand observational data of an event to form a scientific theory about it. If we did, plate tectonic theory would never get off the ground.. same with evolution, and a lot of other scientific theories.

 

[Birdjaguar]

I don't think this is right. I'm pretty sure Dark Matter doesn't interact with ordinary matter except through gravity. It is invisible to electromagnetic fields (electro-weak as well?). This is one of the reasons it's proving so difficult to detect. We're not sure where to look exactly, and even in the places we think to look, it's hard to detect. Dark Matter isn't postulated as the result of odd EM readings - it's postulated because of the observed motion of galaxies and galaxy clusters. There is too much mass to be accounted for by only luminous matter.

Dark Energy is unrelated to Dark Matter, at least this seems to be the case so far. It was, indeed, inserted as a variable in one of Einstein's equations because they didn't make sense to him otherwise (or something like that )

If we were to realize tomorrow that distant galaxies aren't speeding away from us, Dark Energy may indeed go away. But Dark Matter is here to stay - there are independent lines of evidence that point to its existence. None of them, as far as I know, have to do with the expansion of the universe.

I stand corrected. Sloppy posting on my part to make a more general point. Thanks.

 

[El_Machinae]

It's not just the fact that the suggestion came first. It's the simplest answer to "how did the condition of the early universe come to be?" Alternative hypothesis give more complex answers, but it's possible that they may be more reasonable then the current model if they are part of a larger framework that explains other unknown aspects of our world.

Yeah, it's the simplest answer. But, iirc, the theory that generates this simple answer is known to be incomplete. QM and relativity haven't been properly integrated yet, and so the alternate theories that generate different answers to 'before the big bang' are trying to merge those two fields.

I find the idea of an unchanging hyperverse to be the easiest explanation.

 

[peter grimes]

The day we find the final answer will be a sad one indeed.

I disagree. For a couple of reasons:
a. When Kepler and Newton worked out the equations explaining the positions of the planets (a final answer), were they disappointed? I don't know, but I doubt it. So if we arrive at a Grand Unified Theory that appears to leave no more gaps or unexplained phenomena, why would humanity necessarily be less happy? I can easily see excitement and a pioneering effort in engineering rather than malaise. After all, how's that phrase go? "The toughest part is the Theory. The rest is just Engineering."

b. How will we indeed know that we're at the end of inquiry? My gut says this has something to do with Godel, but I've never really understood that stuff. And I also don't think that equations in theories work at the same logical level as formal proofs. But again, this is several undergraduate courses beyond my layman-ship, so I could be very confused here. But my point remains: how will we know when we're there - at the end of inquiry??

 

[Kyriakos]

I doubt there will ever be an end to inquiry, but probably new scientific fields will be created after a new breakthrough, such as they had been after past ones.

 

[warpus]

I doubt there will ever be an end to inquiry, but probably new scientific fields will be created after a new breakthrough, such as they had been after past ones.

Yep, this has been proven in some field of math I believe. (The part that we'll never stop learning).. I could be wrong about what the proof applies to, but..

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

You guys are misinterpreting what I meant with the final answer. It's the final answer to the final question after which no answers can be given because there are no more questions to ask.

I'm not even commenting whether this is possible or not, just that when/if it happens ... it will be a sad day indeed.

edit: @Peter, missed your inquiry why I deem it a sad day. It's indeed because curiosity for a part defines human nature. It is indeed that progress will stop. Nothing can be learned. No new discoveries can be made. I'm far from sure whether it is even possible, and I'm hoping it's not.

 

[Kyriakos]

But can we really reach such a point? To use the example of the being that sees the world in 2 dimensions, would it ever be able to get to the end of understanding a third dimension, something we by nature take as granted - or rather experience it physically instead of theorizing about it?

 

[Souron]

Yeah, it's the simplest answer. But, iirc, the theory that generates this simple answer is known to be incomplete. QM and relativity haven't been properly integrated yet, and so the alternate theories that generate different answers to 'before the big bang' are trying to merge those two fields.

I find the idea of an unchanging hyperverse to be the easiest explanation.

Yep, all true. Though I'm not such a fan of an unchanging hyperverse.

 

[warpus]

You guys are misinterpreting what I meant with the final answer. It's the final answer to the final question after which no answers can be given because there are no more questions to ask.

I'm not even commenting whether this is possible or not, just that when/if it happens ... it will be a sad day indeed.

edit: @Peter, missed your inquiry why I deem it a sad day. It's indeed because curiosity for a part defines human nature. It is indeed that progress will stop. Nothing can be learned. No new discoveries can be made. I'm far from sure whether it is even possible, and I'm hoping it's not.

I don't think it's possible. The field of mathematics is infinite in depth as far as new research and new fields of study go - That's what has been proven.. I believe.

 

[Kyriakos]

I don't think it's possible. The field of mathematics is infinite in depth as far as new research and new fields of study go - That's what has been proven.. I believe.

I think this is due to the same reason you can say "a line is the sum of an infinite number of dots" whereas at the same time you understand it instinctively as a finite drawing on a blackboard.

In other words: we already have the capacity to bypass infinity, due to our bodies. Which is why Zeno's paradox of the tortoise is a paradox and not a reality. But being able to see infinity in something finite means that you can expand your knowledge, a finite being's knowledge, to an infinity in your given capacity.

BTW: sorry if it sounded too mystical, i am posting from Delphoi

 

[warpus]

I think this is due to the same reason you can say "a line is the sum of an infinite number of dots" whereas at the same time you understand it instinctively as a finite drawing on a blackboard.

In other words: we already have the capacity to bypass infinity, due to our bodies. Which is why Zeno's paradox of the tortoise is a paradox and not a reality. But being able to see infinity in something finite means that you can expand your knowledge, a finite being's knowledge, to an infinity in your given capacity.

BTW: sorry if it sounded too mystical, i am posting from Delphoi

Gödel's incompleteness theorems show that finding a complete set of axioms for all of mathematics is impossible.

So I'm not really sure how it applies to this discussion, but I don't think it's possible to discover everything. New discoveries always lead to new questions.

 

[Kyriakos]

Gödel's incompleteness theorems show that finding a complete set of axioms for all of mathematics is impossible.

So I'm not really sure how it applies to this discussion, but I don't think it's possible to discover everything. New discoveries always lead to new questions.

I read the article, but would like more descriptions of the liar sentence's application to Godel's theorem. The fact that a) it is in english, and b) i have not been seriously involved in maths for more than a decade make it hard for me to understand in the terms it is presented.
However i gather he showed that if it is impossible even for truths of arithmetics, relations between natural numbers, to be all proven in a theory which is consistent, it then follows naturally that the whole proven knowledge one can have will never be complete, since it would not even be completein one small field of math.