Philosophy
The following is an excerpted and edited conversation from a physics chat room [October 6th, 2003]. The discussion was initiated by member "X" and essentially asked if a event occurring once can be admitted to the realm of scientific epistemology? Thus, the discussion.
X--Ok, a serious topic. Do events which can happen only one single time belong to the realm of science/physics--justify answer.
Y--Neither X. Religion--falls in category of miracles.
Z--If an experiment is valid, it can be repeated.
Y--I just cannot imagine a single event--one would never empirically prove it.
X--So physics/science is limited to phenomena which are repeatable?
Y--I agree with Z.
Z--X, I think if the event just occurs once, it would be as if a physics law were created only during that event and later destroyed.
Y--Theories are connected to repeatable events by definition.
X--Well anyway I thought a miracle was an event that takes place without respecting the laws of physics etc.
Y--Yes.
Y--But X....
Y--Part of a definition of a theory is that it is repeatable.
X--Is the miracle concept dependent on the state of our knowledge then?
Y--Its part of scientific method--multiple experiments.
Z--Like I had said.... if an experiment cannot be repeated it is as if the laws of physics existed only for the moment that the experiment occurred.
Y--Current knowledge, yes.
Y--Yes Z.
Z--Not all the laws.. .the ones that permitted that experiment to occur.
Y--Yes.
X--OK Y, if science can only handle repeatable events, then we are doomed to never "KNOW" anything about unique events.
Y--Perhaps.
Y--How important are unique events in epistemology?
Y--Any significance?
Y--Other than saying that our current knowledge may be incomplete.
Y--There is room for uniqueness.
Y--An indication of an incorrect and incomplete body of knowledge.
X--Or, is the issue really a matter of human interpretation in that we only accept that which we understand /a la caveman having a wind god because he couldn't understand air.
Y--In a way yes.
Y--Knowledge is always unfolding and will accept the unique.
X--No brain--no epistemology ???
Y--Right.
Y--Maybe X....
Y--There may be in the future room for miracles.
Y--Like a burning bush that Moses experienced.
X--Then maybe physics is a dead end in our trying to answer fundamental questions since "brains" are just parts of some kind of bio mechanisms.
Y--Not really X.
Y--Physics--a body of knowledge--will always be unfolding.
Z--If our brain were different.... would physics be different?
X--As I was saying, even with a unique event there is hope since we still can talk about probabilities and information content etc.
Y--Miracles may be a part of a body of knowledge in the future.
Y--Everyone will have a Moses burning bush.
X--The miracle concept is independent of any religious connotation / just depends on our state of scientific knowledge right ?
Y--No.
X--How so?
Y--Religions use a unique event to bolster their faith.
Y--Not really scientific for them.
X--Their faith or their faithful?
Y--If anything else, it is a slam by religions against science.
Y--Burning bushes, parting a large sea, water into wine, and so on.
X--Can we agree that science is just ordered/classified knowledge plus methodologies to obtain new knowledge ?
Y--In the future--yes, begging the question Z--these events may be part of a new body of knowledge.
Y--Yes X.
X--So, to know what science is, we must know what knowledge is.
X--And we are back to the premise that all "human" knowledge is based on actual physical observations.
Y--Uh--not entirely.
Y--There may well be metaphysical.
X--So, if we physically observe a unique event, it is part of our body of knowledge.
Y--Perhaps.
Y--Maybe an undiscovered explanation.
Y--Consider the following....
Y--Ancient mans’ very first observation of Halley’s comet.
X--Seemed unique to ancient man.
Y--He may have considered it a miracle or unique event based on current knowledge--then guess what--76 years later it appeared again--now the current single event knowledge of the event was understood and became a part of a new body of knowledge.
Y--So the same maybe with a burning bush.
X--So we open the door for "religious miracles" to someday be part of our knowledge base. I cannot accept that on the simple basis that many such "religious miracles" were made up in the minds of people and never were observed.
Y--We don't know that for sure X.
Y--The events could have happened.
Z--And what about the virgin Mary visions? They occurred many times... is that an unique event?
Y--But I do agree that they have more mythical/religious meaning than an actual physical event.
Y--No.
Y--Repetition does not yield uniqueness.
Y--That is part of an hypothesis of an event.
Y--Quantifiable repetition.
X--There is quite a difference also in an event which reoccurs on its own and an event that we can make reoccur, say in a laboratory.
Y--Yes--but to add bona fide events to a body of knowledge does require lab testing.
Y--The lab can be the universe--not a building downtown.
X--I think it is an unanswerable question as to whether or not there are miracles.
Y--For the time being yes.
X--For example, if a miracle is more than just not yet discovered science.
Z--An example just occurred to me... the cases of "miracles" in medicine.. a terminal person is about to die and suddenly survives... the doctors cant say what happened and made this person continue alive... is it undiscovered science?
X-- Also we have to look at the possibility that all events are unique! After all each is characterized by a time parameter etc., etc., etc.
Y--I think so Z.
Y--Recovery from a disease can be a mystery.
Z--But while they don't discover, they say "it was a miracle".
X--Z, I would say unknown science since we do not yet know all there is to know about physiology etc. And we may never "discover" what kept the person alive.
X--We are all just skirting the deity issue.
Y--My point exactly.
Y--Ultimate knowledge of everything may never be know.
Y--There must be some mystery.
X--Z, Also remember the survival due to a medical miracle may in principle be like knowing that the probability of one single number in the unit interval being chosen is zero yet individual numbers are chosen i.e., happen.
Y--Perhaps man is incapable of knowing all.
[The names were changed to protect the innocent.]
Any thoughts about single, non-repeatable events and scientific knowledge? Should miracles be left to matters of faith? They certainly don't fit within the criteria of scientific epistemology.
- Assumptions And Limits Of Contemporary Cosmology
Bias is part of cosmological epistemology... "Of course, science is not simply based on observation and experiment so innocently. If science were naively based on observation and experiment, the science as we know now may not be possible. On the contrary,...
- Templeton Prize Criticized
"Templeton prize is bad news for religion, not science" by Michael Brooks March 25th, 2010 NewScientist In his acceptance today of the £1 million Templeton prize for "an exceptional contribution to affirming life's spiritual dimension", evolutionary...
- "true Function Of Science" Poll
What do you think is the true function of science... Knowledge...2 Technology...0 Both...3 Other...0 Ideally, the true function of science would be the acquisition of knowledge about ourselves and the universe and in many cases that is the primary function...
- "theoretical Physics...good Epistemology?" Poll
How much epistemological relevance is there in theoretical physics being that it favors philosophy more than empirical science? A lot...2 Some...1 None...2 I am not the only one who has raised this question...so has Steven Weinberg who clearly states...
- Limit On Understanding The Universe
"Either our ability to know reality has reached a dead end, or this is just another theoretical challenge to overcome, and we're approaching it the wrong way." "The Riddle of the Unique" Why is it so hard to build a complete theory of our universe?...
Philosophy
Single events/scientific epistemology
The following is an excerpted and edited conversation from a physics chat room [October 6th, 2003]. The discussion was initiated by member "X" and essentially asked if a event occurring once can be admitted to the realm of scientific epistemology? Thus, the discussion.
X--Ok, a serious topic. Do events which can happen only one single time belong to the realm of science/physics--justify answer.
Y--Neither X. Religion--falls in category of miracles.
Z--If an experiment is valid, it can be repeated.
Y--I just cannot imagine a single event--one would never empirically prove it.
X--So physics/science is limited to phenomena which are repeatable?
Y--I agree with Z.
Z--X, I think if the event just occurs once, it would be as if a physics law were created only during that event and later destroyed.
Y--Theories are connected to repeatable events by definition.
X--Well anyway I thought a miracle was an event that takes place without respecting the laws of physics etc.
Y--Yes.
Y--But X....
Y--Part of a definition of a theory is that it is repeatable.
X--Is the miracle concept dependent on the state of our knowledge then?
Y--Its part of scientific method--multiple experiments.
Z--Like I had said.... if an experiment cannot be repeated it is as if the laws of physics existed only for the moment that the experiment occurred.
Y--Current knowledge, yes.
Y--Yes Z.
Z--Not all the laws.. .the ones that permitted that experiment to occur.
Y--Yes.
X--OK Y, if science can only handle repeatable events, then we are doomed to never "KNOW" anything about unique events.
Y--Perhaps.
Y--How important are unique events in epistemology?
Y--Any significance?
Y--Other than saying that our current knowledge may be incomplete.
Y--There is room for uniqueness.
Y--An indication of an incorrect and incomplete body of knowledge.
X--Or, is the issue really a matter of human interpretation in that we only accept that which we understand /a la caveman having a wind god because he couldn't understand air.
Y--In a way yes.
Y--Knowledge is always unfolding and will accept the unique.
X--No brain--no epistemology ???
Y--Right.
Y--Maybe X....
Y--There may be in the future room for miracles.
Y--Like a burning bush that Moses experienced.
X--Then maybe physics is a dead end in our trying to answer fundamental questions since "brains" are just parts of some kind of bio mechanisms.
Y--Not really X.
Y--Physics--a body of knowledge--will always be unfolding.
Z--If our brain were different.... would physics be different?
X--As I was saying, even with a unique event there is hope since we still can talk about probabilities and information content etc.
Y--Miracles may be a part of a body of knowledge in the future.
Y--Everyone will have a Moses burning bush.
X--The miracle concept is independent of any religious connotation / just depends on our state of scientific knowledge right ?
Y--No.
X--How so?
Y--Religions use a unique event to bolster their faith.
Y--Not really scientific for them.
X--Their faith or their faithful?
Y--If anything else, it is a slam by religions against science.
Y--Burning bushes, parting a large sea, water into wine, and so on.
X--Can we agree that science is just ordered/classified knowledge plus methodologies to obtain new knowledge ?
Y--In the future--yes, begging the question Z--these events may be part of a new body of knowledge.
Y--Yes X.
X--So, to know what science is, we must know what knowledge is.
X--And we are back to the premise that all "human" knowledge is based on actual physical observations.
Y--Uh--not entirely.
Y--There may well be metaphysical.
X--So, if we physically observe a unique event, it is part of our body of knowledge.
Y--Perhaps.
Y--Maybe an undiscovered explanation.
Y--Consider the following....
Y--Ancient mans’ very first observation of Halley’s comet.
X--Seemed unique to ancient man.
Y--He may have considered it a miracle or unique event based on current knowledge--then guess what--76 years later it appeared again--now the current single event knowledge of the event was understood and became a part of a new body of knowledge.
Y--So the same maybe with a burning bush.
X--So we open the door for "religious miracles" to someday be part of our knowledge base. I cannot accept that on the simple basis that many such "religious miracles" were made up in the minds of people and never were observed.
Y--We don't know that for sure X.
Y--The events could have happened.
Z--And what about the virgin Mary visions? They occurred many times... is that an unique event?
Y--But I do agree that they have more mythical/religious meaning than an actual physical event.
Y--No.
Y--Repetition does not yield uniqueness.
Y--That is part of an hypothesis of an event.
Y--Quantifiable repetition.
X--There is quite a difference also in an event which reoccurs on its own and an event that we can make reoccur, say in a laboratory.
Y--Yes--but to add bona fide events to a body of knowledge does require lab testing.
Y--The lab can be the universe--not a building downtown.
X--I think it is an unanswerable question as to whether or not there are miracles.
Y--For the time being yes.
X--For example, if a miracle is more than just not yet discovered science.
Z--An example just occurred to me... the cases of "miracles" in medicine.. a terminal person is about to die and suddenly survives... the doctors cant say what happened and made this person continue alive... is it undiscovered science?
X-- Also we have to look at the possibility that all events are unique! After all each is characterized by a time parameter etc., etc., etc.
Y--I think so Z.
Y--Recovery from a disease can be a mystery.
Z--But while they don't discover, they say "it was a miracle".
X--Z, I would say unknown science since we do not yet know all there is to know about physiology etc. And we may never "discover" what kept the person alive.
X--We are all just skirting the deity issue.
Y--My point exactly.
Y--Ultimate knowledge of everything may never be know.
Y--There must be some mystery.
X--Z, Also remember the survival due to a medical miracle may in principle be like knowing that the probability of one single number in the unit interval being chosen is zero yet individual numbers are chosen i.e., happen.
Y--Perhaps man is incapable of knowing all.
[The names were changed to protect the innocent.]
Any thoughts about single, non-repeatable events and scientific knowledge? Should miracles be left to matters of faith? They certainly don't fit within the criteria of scientific epistemology.
- Assumptions And Limits Of Contemporary Cosmology
Bias is part of cosmological epistemology... "Of course, science is not simply based on observation and experiment so innocently. If science were naively based on observation and experiment, the science as we know now may not be possible. On the contrary,...
- Templeton Prize Criticized
"Templeton prize is bad news for religion, not science" by Michael Brooks March 25th, 2010 NewScientist In his acceptance today of the £1 million Templeton prize for "an exceptional contribution to affirming life's spiritual dimension", evolutionary...
- "true Function Of Science" Poll
What do you think is the true function of science... Knowledge...2 Technology...0 Both...3 Other...0 Ideally, the true function of science would be the acquisition of knowledge about ourselves and the universe and in many cases that is the primary function...
- "theoretical Physics...good Epistemology?" Poll
How much epistemological relevance is there in theoretical physics being that it favors philosophy more than empirical science? A lot...2 Some...1 None...2 I am not the only one who has raised this question...so has Steven Weinberg who clearly states...
- Limit On Understanding The Universe
"Either our ability to know reality has reached a dead end, or this is just another theoretical challenge to overcome, and we're approaching it the wrong way." "The Riddle of the Unique" Why is it so hard to build a complete theory of our universe?...