Read your post with interest.
now the very foundation of science as a body of knowledge is to study/obsreve, analyse, and quantify what are shared human experiences. Where ime falls into that category. Irrespective of sometimes arrogant behaviour of the so called scientists to corrupt the very essence of the above principle.
Unfortunately human arrogance seems to go hand in hand with knowledge which is sought for sincere goals. But this is another argument.
I have attempted to use science to explain the concept of time because science has proved to be mostly accurate and sometimes very elegant in explaining what are shared experiences and time falls into that category. That is, it is very good in explaining what are mostly objective experiences. However like many things in life - some have objective as well as subjective dimension and it is this ''subjective'' dimension which is causing problems to scienmtists.
So science's failure to explain what is missed by the general human experience or shall we say by the majority human observation only demonstrates what is one of the limitations o what is generally a very powerful area of learning. science may not have all answers to everything but the things which it has been able to answer it has done so magnificently. Though I am among those who appreciate its limitations.
If you were a believer in God - this would make you appreciate the limitations of all things other than God since he is the original of all things and the power of everything else is only relative to everything else but insignificant to His power. And this iw where muslims testify that there is only One power, One might, one Origin, One unique God.
Same God who has created science and gave it the ability to make us better understand the physical world we live in.
Regards flow-unclever
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote:
Originally Posted by RasRuben
I'm not a believer in the big bang (and as I understand it Mr Hawking has his doubts as to how correct the theory actually is)
I view science for the most part as the attempt of humanity to create the illusion that their reality is of more importance than and rules of nature. An example would be saying that time is relative in nature rather than saying humans understand and percieve it to be relative in nature. Nature is, science and man are products of nature that do not actually know nature but percieve it.
If one moved at the speed of light, it would not be surprising that humans would percieve movement to stop, but it wouldn't make it a reality that it did. I believe science needs to learn to separate what humans percieve and what actually is regardless of human's existence. All things move regardless of human's existence. They move at different speeds. If we percieve them not to move or to move means nothing to nature, nature simply is.
But I agree, time exists and is a representation of how we percieve movement. I however believe time exists regardless of how we percieve it as movement exists regardless of how we percieve it. The tree that falls in a forest where nobody is there to see it, does fall and it may take about 10 seconds to fall to the ground making a mighty sound when it does. It is the thought of a human who believes in the supremacy of his perception as a necessity for existence (A serious god complex) who believes that the tree never fell, time didn't exist there and it didn't make a sound.
Hotep
|