Re:This stuff is not physics.
on
The Mind of God
·
· Score: 1
I want to start out by mentioning that I consider myself agnostic, but leaning towards not believing in a supreme being because it's just not logical, and doesn't really fit in with my world view.
Having said that, and having many negative thoughts about organized religion myself, I think it is important to separate the religion from the implementation. I would agree that most implementations of major religions end up trying to use people's faith for control, but that is not necessarily what religion is all about. Lots of destruction has been done in the name of Christ, but that is not really a problem with Christianity, per se, but just a problem of certain humans getting in there and abusing power.
My use of the term spirituality is probably closer to what you may think of a naturalism. Looking at the natural world, in all of its granduer, without trying to break it down and anaylze it.
There are some really cool things that happen in the world that don't yet have scientific explanations. It doesn't mean that eventually there will not be scientific explanations, but sometimes just accepting the reality and dealing with that without understanding it, or breaking it down, is a very constructive way of learning about the world.
Take, for example, the idea that people who are dying often live beyond the doctor's expectations if a big event is upcoming, like the marriage of a child. And once the event happens, they basically give in and die a peaceful death. I think most of us have heard enough stories like this to believe there is something to it (or maybe not, but I certainly do), even if it sounds pretty non-scientific. We do know that emotions are tied to brain chemistry and that by being very positive mentally, we can effect our body chemistry, and so I could see how someday this might all be explained. But for the meantime, if we can accept the basic truth that wanting to live can extend our lives to some extent, then we can use that information to help find more rounded ways to treat terminal patients. Many people might interpret that type of thinking as spiritual, while others may see it as scientific, just not yet explained. In the end it doesn't really matter if something useful can be done with the information we have, however you interpret it.
As much as I dislike listening to religious fanatics tell us we are missing out on what is important, I also don't like listening to scientific minded people who say that all things not based on science are meaningless, because they are most definitely not. I heartily agree that the struggle for human progress is a worthy one. With all the technology available today, we can share inforamtion and connect with people in a way never available before, let's just remember that there are a lot of great minds in the non-scientific world out there that have a lot to offer to humanity.
Re:This stuff is not physics.
on
The Mind of God
·
· Score: 1
When you say physics explains something, what exactly does that mean? Saying that gravity explains why things fall to earth is ok, but does it lead to a fundamental understanding of some kind, or does that just move the question up to "what is gravity". I am sure that modern physics has some explanations about what gravity is, involving particles, or the structure of time space. In college I studied some of the basics of particle physics and relativitely, and found it fascinating. in the end though, I was always left with more questions than answers.
I have at times believed that you can justify the "truth" in physics by looking at the results. The results of physics are truly awesome. The mathmatics behind QM are elegant and amazing. In the end, though, I wonder if this is because QM is a "truth", or does it just happen to be a really good model?
Science is considered different from religion because it tests it's theories in a scientific manner. This is a bit circular, but by accepting some kind of logical rules, or mathmatics, you give yourself a framework with which to construct theories and test them. By then taking those theories and testing them on the real world we decide if they are right or not. This still requires a leap of faith to accept that model as a truth of the universe rather than just a really good model. I realize that is might sound absurd to think that a model as complex as QM which turns out to accurately measure things in the real world could just be a good model, but the human race has been amazing at using mathmatics to model the world. When Newton came along with his theories, people in the scientific world believed they were finding answers, and getting close to the truth about things. We know more than we used to, but are we getting any closer to ultimate truth, or is it infinitely far away?
I have spent most of my life being a full "believer" in science, but I don't feel like we are really explaining anything. I don't consider myself to be religious, but I do think that spirituality, which I think of as a way of dealing with things in the world that I don't really expect to ever understand, it something we must all come to terms with in our lives.
I don't like to believe something because some else says it's true, but if you ask enough questions, you end up having to take something for granted, take something on faith. As science pushes forward the boundary for what it claims to explain, what you have to take on faith seems to get smaller and smaller, and you find yourself believing that you are getting closer to the truth. First we dicovered that there are things smaller than the naked eye could see, then we moved on to protons and electrons, then does to nuetrinos and a plethora of other particles. So now we have explained things down to these tiny particles, but what next? Now matter how good our theories get, is there really every going to be theory that explains existence without some kind of faith required?
I have not read the book in question, so I don't know if it is making claims it shouldn't about what physics is, but just because a book is non-mathmatical, it doesn't mean it can't have something useful to say about the subject.
In the end, I find that taking the time to come out of the math for a while and look at the world from a more spritual perspective does not have to threaten or contradict anything being done in the scientific world, but it can complement and enrich the scientific viewpoint.
Slashdot Mirror
Having said that, and having many negative thoughts about organized religion myself, I think it is important to separate the religion from the implementation. I would agree that most implementations of major religions end up trying to use people's faith for control, but that is not necessarily what religion is all about. Lots of destruction has been done in the name of Christ, but that is not really a problem with Christianity, per se, but just a problem of certain humans getting in there and abusing power.
My use of the term spirituality is probably closer to what you may think of a naturalism. Looking at the natural world, in all of its granduer, without trying to break it down and anaylze it.
There are some really cool things that happen in the world that don't yet have scientific explanations. It doesn't mean that eventually there will not be scientific explanations, but sometimes just accepting the reality and dealing with that without understanding it, or breaking it down, is a very constructive way of learning about the world.
Take, for example, the idea that people who are dying often live beyond the doctor's expectations if a big event is upcoming, like the marriage of a child. And once the event happens, they basically give in and die a peaceful death. I think most of us have heard enough stories like this to believe there is something to it (or maybe not, but I certainly do), even if it sounds pretty non-scientific. We do know that emotions are tied to brain chemistry and that by being very positive mentally, we can effect our body chemistry, and so I could see how someday this might all be explained. But for the meantime, if we can accept the basic truth that wanting to live can extend our lives to some extent, then we can use that information to help find more rounded ways to treat terminal patients. Many people might interpret that type of thinking as spiritual, while others may see it as scientific, just not yet explained. In the end it doesn't really matter if something useful can be done with the information we have, however you interpret it.
As much as I dislike listening to religious fanatics tell us we are missing out on what is important, I also don't like listening to scientific minded people who say that all things not based on science are meaningless, because they are most definitely not. I heartily agree that the struggle for human progress is a worthy one. With all the technology available today, we can share inforamtion and connect with people in a way never available before, let's just remember that there are a lot of great minds in the non-scientific world out there that have a lot to offer to humanity.
Saying that gravity explains why things fall to earth is ok, but
does it lead to a fundamental understanding of some kind, or does that
just move the question up to "what is gravity". I am sure that modern
physics has some explanations about what gravity is, involving
particles, or the structure of time space. In college I studied
some of the basics of particle physics and relativitely, and
found it fascinating. in the end though, I was always left
with more questions than answers.
I have at times believed that you can justify the "truth" in physics
by looking at the results. The results of physics are truly awesome.
The mathmatics behind QM are elegant and amazing. In the end,
though, I wonder if this is because QM is a "truth", or does it just
happen to be a really good model?
Science is considered different from religion because it tests
it's theories in a scientific manner. This is a bit circular,
but by accepting some kind of logical rules, or mathmatics,
you give yourself a framework with which to construct theories
and test them. By then taking those theories and testing them on
the real world we decide if they are right or not. This still
requires a leap of faith to accept that model as a truth of
the universe rather than just a really good model. I realize
that is might sound absurd to think that a model as complex
as QM which turns out to accurately measure things in the real
world could just be a good model, but the human race has been
amazing at using mathmatics to model the world. When Newton
came along with his theories, people in the scientific world
believed they were finding answers, and getting close to the
truth about things. We know more than we used to, but are we
getting any closer to ultimate truth, or is it infinitely far
away?
I have spent most of my life being a full "believer" in science,
but I don't feel like we are really explaining anything. I don't
consider myself to be religious, but I do think that spirituality,
which I think of as a way of dealing with things in the world that
I don't really expect to ever understand, it something we must
all come to terms with in our lives.
I don't like to believe something because some else says it's true,
but if you ask enough questions, you end up having to take something
for granted, take something on faith. As science pushes forward
the boundary for what it claims to explain, what you have to
take on faith seems to get smaller and smaller, and you find
yourself believing that you are getting closer to the truth.
First we dicovered that there are things smaller than the naked eye
could see, then we moved on to protons and electrons, then
does to nuetrinos and a plethora of other particles. So now
we have explained things down to these tiny particles, but
what next? Now matter how good our theories get, is there
really every going to be theory that explains existence without
some kind of faith required?
I have not read the book in question, so I don't know if it
is making claims it shouldn't about what physics is, but
just because a book is non-mathmatical, it doesn't mean
it can't have something useful to say about the subject.
In the end, I find that taking the time to come out of the
math for a while and look at the world from a more spritual
perspective does not have to threaten or contradict anything
being done in the scientific world, but it can complement
and enrich the scientific viewpoint.