Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

At Mind Matters News: Why it’s difficult for science to answer some basic questions


Are we reaching the edge of the things science can tell us?

Siegel asks pessimistically, “Is theoretical physics broken? Or is it just hard? When you don’t have enough clues to bring your detective story to a close, you should expect that your educated guesses will all be wrong.” It’s fashionable today to talk about a “crisis in cosmology” due to issues like these. But it is a static crisis, if such is possible. That is, things could go on this way indefinitely.

Will another discovery resolve the questions, as so often in the past? Or are we reaching the edge of the things science can tell us — the territory of “Why is there something rather than nothing”? We can only research and see what happens, as the questions that science is expected to answer grow more basic and more profound.

Takehome: We can only research and see what happens, as the questions science is expected to answer grow more basic and more profound.

You may also wish to read: A recent Big Bang debate: Sheer politeness underscores a shakeup. Takehome point: “Everyone would be keen to abandon the theory if there’s a better alternative, nobody’s married to the Big Bang theory.” Such sudden, widespread cosmological doubt is bound to have a major cultural impact even if it’s too soon to see how it will play out in, say, science fiction.

Querius at 7, Good work is being done. Good research is being done. All those new phones just didn't pop into existence, for example, someone designed them. Actual progress is being made. relatd
It will teach us only if we let it. Currently, science is being censored by ideology, politics, and profit. -Q Querius
We are still scratching the surface of what we know. The science yet learned will continue to teach us. BobRyan
The original article asks some interesting questions: https://mindmatters.ai/2022/10/why-its-difficult-for-science-to-answer-some-basic-questions/ I always had a problem accepting reversibility when it's claimed that the arrow of time vanishes at small scales. I believe that probabilistic scattering falsifies its mirror image. Most physics is based on models that pragmatically yield useful results. But when one observes deviations in the model from reality at some different scale, then a new model is developed--temporarily. It reminds me of some wag in my first college physics class commenting that physics was the study of the interactions of massless elephants on frictionless ice. -Q Querius
Seversky at 3, Learn more? Learn more? That's all they're doing out there... except for a few cry babies who won't get far with their bad/wrong attitudes. relatd
We might as well keep on trying to learn more. What've we got to lose? Seversky
Who writes this stuff? Who even thinks this stuff? We would not have electricity in our homes if it wasn't for a man named Nikola Tesla. Never heard of him? Maybe some of the 20-somethings working in science today should read some history. Actual history not depressing nonsense from people who live on the internet. 'It's tooo hard!' Oh yeah? You thought science would take 5 minutes? Like Wikipedia? Learn. Think. Use your imagination! relatd
I doubt we are reaching the edge of things we can learn from science. The real question is how did all the complicated coordinated effects come to be? The more science finds out, the more intricate our universe is from the total down to the individual parts. And especially life!!! It’s amazing. jerry

Leave a Reply