The Future of Science

[thranduill]

Science feeds on itself like a virus. Each new breakthrough opens doors for new breakthroughs. The whole thing is a vicious cycle that we will constantly be putting time, energy, and money into, and we will never really see an end to, let alone a result or reward from, judging by how fast man is destroying the planet and themselves today. Man took thousands of years to progress from the wheel to the car, yet only decades from the car into space. Now we measure scientific progress in weeks. We are spinning out of control.

 

Sometimes having the answers just complicates things instead of simplifying. Our sunsets have been reduced to wavelengths and frequencies. The complexities of our universe have been reduced to mathematical equations. Does science hold anything sacred or special? Of course not. Everything is quantified, formulized, figured out, done with, meanless. There is no more mystery or awe.

 

But it is human nature to question, to try to figure out things we don't understand.

In no way will science ever halt or be done with, as long as humans follow their own nature. But is it justified to go with our own nature? So far, the core value of most all human nature has proven to be selfishness.

 

I am playing devil's advocate, and I'm simply stating a few ideas and/or realizations. In no way do I mean to make any solid argument, I'm just kind of throwing it out there. But it is a good point.  ;)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I mostly agree with you. One of the problems of what we call science is the

fact that it is mainly technology, not science. Probably physics only has still

the connotation of science, that has always been based on a philosophical basis.

When we study genoma we are just magnifying what we yet know and we

find all the components of a gene, but we still dont know what is life.

Of course, we know everything about its chemical,biological,phisycal aspect,

but we do not have any idea of what it is.

So, thousands of years ago light was considered from the spiritual point of vue

and we had a god of light, a god of sun and moon and so on.

The actual way of investigating the world by instruments only is enlarging the field of what we consider "materia" and is narrowing the field of "spiritus".

For this reason we can say that this is a material society, that focuses mainly on the practical aspects of life: welfare is mainly an economic matter and most of the

sacrality of life has been lost. Words like peace, love,fraternity are on the mouth of everybody but have no more meanings in practice.

In my idea , as those two aspects are both in life, only if we join welfare (a right

for all men, not for few) to a different approach of life (respect of other's

diversity is going to be very important in the next future) we will go nowhere.

When we try to impose to other people our way of living, we start speaking of

giving "freedom" and "democracy" to all the world, when we are just exporting

capitalistic exploitation and the interests of some multinational companies.

[ThetaOrionis01]

Science feeds on itself like a virus. Each new breakthrough opens doors for new breakthroughs. The whole thing is a vicious cycle that we will constantly be putting time, energy, and money into, and we will never really see an end to, let alone a result or reward from, judging by how fast man is destroying the planet and themselves today. Man took thousands of years to progress from the wheel to the car, yet only decades from the car into space. Now we measure scientific progress in weeks. We are spinning out of control.

 

I disagree. It is not science that's the problem, but the way it is being used - which has more to do with greed and commercialisation than with science.

 

Sometimes having the answers just complicates things instead of simplifying. Our sunsets have been reduced to wavelengths and frequencies. The complexities of our universe have been reduced to mathematical equations. Does science hold anything sacred or special? Of course not. Everything is quantified, formulized, figured out, done with, meanless. There is no more mystery or awe.

 

On the other hand, science can help to banish superstition. We no longer sacrifice babies to the sun god because we know now that the sun is just a giant fusion reactor, not a capricious deity which will sulk and plunge the world into eternal darkness if it isn't worshipped. Superstition is a very dangerous thing, which can and has been exploited with horrific consequences.

 

No more mystery and awe? I suppose that depends on your point of view. I find it very awe-inspiring that a first generation of stars had to 'die' to produce the heavier elements which make up the earth.

 

But it is human nature to question, to try to figure out things we don't understand.

In no way will science ever halt or be done with, as long as humans follow their own nature. But is it justified to go with our own nature? So far, the core value of most all human nature has proven to be selfishness.

 

I am playing devil's advocate, and I'm simply stating a few ideas and/or realizations. In no way do I mean to make any solid argument, I'm just kind of throwing it out there. But it is a good point.  ;)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

It is indeed a pity that human greed and selfishness are still very prevalent. However, why should that be a reason to abandon the pursuit of science, when science might be the very thing which can help us grow out of those childish traits?

[thranduill]

Science feeds on itself like a virus. Each new breakthrough opens doors for new breakthroughs. The whole thing is a vicious cycle that we will constantly be putting time, energy, and money into, and we will never really see an end to, let alone a result or reward from, judging by how fast man is destroying the planet and themselves today. Man took thousands of years to progress from the wheel to the car, yet only decades from the car into space. Now we measure scientific progress in weeks. We are spinning out of control.

 

I disagree. It is not science that's the problem, but the way it is being used - which has more to do with greed and commercialisation than with science.

 

Sometimes having the answers just complicates things instead of simplifying. Our sunsets have been reduced to wavelengths and frequencies. The complexities of our universe have been reduced to mathematical equations. Does science hold anything sacred or special? Of course not. Everything is quantified, formulized, figured out, done with, meanless. There is no more mystery or awe.

 

and has been exploited with horrific consequences.

 

make up the earth.

No more mystery and awe? I suppose that depends on your point of view. I fiOn the other hand, science can help to banish superstition. We no longer sacrifice babies to the sun god because we know now that the sun is just a giant fusion reactor, not a capricious deity which will sulk and plunge the world into eternal darkness if it isn't worshipped. Superstition is a very dangerous thing, which can nd it very awe-inspiring that a first generation of stars had to 'die' to produce the heavier elements which

But it is human nature to question, to try to figure out things we don't understand.

In no way will science ever halt or be done with, as long as humans follow their own nature. But is it justified to go with our own nature? So far, the core value of most all human nature has proven to be selfishness.

 

I am playing devil's advocate, and I'm simply stating a few ideas and/or realizations. In no way do I mean to make any solid argument, I'm just kind of throwing it out there. But it is a good point.  ;)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

It is indeed a pity that human greed and selfishness are still very prevalent. However, why should that be a reason to abandon the pursuit of science, when science might be the very thing which can help us grow out of those childish traits?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Your point of vue is quite interesting, even if I disagree on some points.

 

disagree. It is not science that's the problem, but the way it is being used - which has more to do with greed and commercialisation than with science.

 

This point is very close to my point of vue tht we have more technology than science,

 

science can help to banish superstition. We no longer sacrifice babies to the sun god because we know now that the sun is just a giant fusion reactor, not a capricious deity which will sulk and plunge the world into eternal darkness if it isn't worshipped. Superstition is a very dangerous thing,

 

The fact that the sun is a giant fusion reactor explains the phisical point of vue of what is sun only and do not consider the existence of other points of vue,

It is like reducing a man to his brain, organs, blood,hands and feet.

It would not explain the difference between Christ,Van Gogh, Einstein and yourself (or myself),

In my idea (and I repeat in my idea), what has a front has a back and what appears as material has a spiritual back (and vice versa of course) and all what is

visible in the world is a manifestation of a non visible reality and the point of contact between them is the fact that both are vibrations.

When they have a low frequency we call it "materia" and when the frequency tends to infinite we call it God or Brahama or Wakan Tanka. ( I disagree on the

theory that the maximum richeable speed on this universe is the so called speed of light i.e. 300.000 Km/s.)

I agree completetely on the problem of superstition, that is still there: could you say to me how many babies we sacrifice today to the money god? Much, much more every year than what have been sacrified in !000 years worshipping the sun.... (every age has its gods.... and money and power are the REAL gods of this world).

 

And this kind of science , without a basic vision of what is man and why it is in the universe, cannot bring us to any place, as it sees the material side of things only and completely ignore the spiritual aspect that is in everything,even in a stone.

But on it we agree: this is not science , it has to do more with commercialisation.

Science is a different thing...

[Eiade]

Sometimes having the answers just complicates things instead of simplifying. Our sunsets have been reduced to wavelengths and frequencies. The complexities of our universe have been reduced to mathematical equations. Does science hold anything sacred or special? Of course not. Everything is quantified, formulized, figured out, done with, meanless. There is no more mystery or awe.

 

 

On the other hand, science can help to banish superstition. We no longer sacrifice babies to the sun god because we know now that the sun is just a giant fusion reactor, not a capricious deity which will sulk and plunge the world into eternal darkness if it isn't worshipped. Superstition is a very dangerous thing, which can and has been exploited with horrific consequences.

 

True, and I agree with you. There are the two sides that I recognize, and these two have been in a constant battle amidst the human race for supremacy. We can either be spiritual, closed-minded, superstitious, and ignorant, or we can be learned, skeptical, cynical, and spiritually void. In a fast-paced technological world, I believe that the human race will meet its end much sooner than that of a spiritual world.

 

I hate to bring any hint of religion into this, and I'll edit this post promptly if a moderator PM's me. But picture if you would, a world of nothing but Zen Buddists. Spiritual, hard-working, peaceful, and for our purposes, technologically innert. They live simple good lives, and they have not a speck of modern science in their world. Now, picture a world of all aetheists and people who don't think about anything spiritual. Face-paced, reckless, dependant on their gadgets and devices that give them the standard of rushing through everything, crippled by their own enlightenment and unable to accept meaning in anything removed from technology. To me, it seems that the science-governed world is careening down the path to their own destruction, while the spiritual-governed world is ignorant, but safe from themselves. Inefficient with everything compared to the science world, but more secure, reserved and with much more inner peace.

 

I would never want to be a part of a scienceless world, but humanity would be happier and longer-living in one.

[ThetaOrionis01]

I think Eiade's and thranduill's posts are prime examples of people clinging on to superstition in the absence of a scientific explanation.

 

In my idea (and I repeat in my idea), what has a front has a back and what appears as material has a spiritual back (and vice versa of course) and all what is

visible in the world is a manifestation of a non visible reality and the point of contact between them is the fact that both are vibrations.

When they have a low frequency we call it "materia" and when the frequency tends to infinite we call it God or Brahama or Wakan Tanka. ( I disagree on the

theory that the maximum richeable speed on this universe is the so called speed of light i.e. 300.000 Km/s.)

I agree completetely on the problem of superstition, that is still there: could you say to me how many babies we sacrifice today to the money god? Much, much more every year than what have been sacrified in !000 years worshipping the sun.... (every age has its gods.... and money and power are the REAL gods of this world).

 

And this kind of science , without a basic vision of what is man and why it is in the universe, cannot bring us to any place, as it sees the material side of things only and completely ignore the spiritual aspect that is in everything,even in a stone.

 

 

You are entitled to your opinion, but to me this is blatant superstition. We do not yet have a good enough understanding of brain chemistry to be able to explain the emergent properties of self-awareness, consciousness, conscience etc in terms of neurons and neurotransmitters - so as a substitute we resort to a lot of mystical mumbo-jumbo. This is not so very different to our ancestors worshipping thundergods, and cowering in terror of their wrath.

 

Humans have always been good at clinging desperately to any notion that makes them feel 'special' or 'select' or 'chosen' - when all we are is an agglomeration of complex biochemical systems.

 

Calling money a 'god' is a misleading use of language. It is human society which has chosen to measure its worth by its wealth - there is nothing mysterious or divine about money - it is we who have chosen our economic system.

 

could you say to me how many babies we sacrifice today to the money god

 

Oh, please. This kind of phraseology is emotive as well as being misleading and dangerous. Why? Because by raising 'money' to this status we neatly abolish all responsibility for the state the world is in. We can't do anything about it - money is just too powerful...

No. It is our choice to do something about it - you could give your money to charity, you could choose to boycott companies which exploit third world countries, you could lobby governments to write off third world debt, you could make a point of buying only fair trade goods, you could enter politics and work towards a change in an economic system that currently is focussed on growth at the expense of poorer countries - but all this would involve you taking responsibility as a member of the human race.

Far easier to wail that nothing can be done against the god of money.....

 

 

We can either be spiritual, closed-minded, superstitious, and ignorant, or we can be learned, skeptical, cynical, and spiritually void

 

Wrong. First of all, define spirituality - since yours seems to be a very narrow-minded one.

Love, appreciation of beauty, an admiration of the complexity of the mind... which ones of those are incompatible with science? The lifecycle of stars is a wonderful thing, the evolutionary complexity of organisms is marvellous. Just because you understand how a thing works and how it came to be does not make it lose its fascination or its beauty. Even the emergent complexity of the human mind - how a system of neurons, neurotransmitters and sensory stimuli develops into complex thought - can be appreciated in terms of science.

 

My point of view is that understanding this incredible complexity is far more satisfying and fascinating than seeking refuge in superstitious 'spiritualism'.

[thranduill]

To Theta Orionis:

You make me think that I have to restart my studies of english.

1) I dont understand what is "blatant superstition": the fact that I see all the universe as a complexity of vibrations? This is the reality of the world: materia is just a low frequency vibration and so what we call "spirit" is just high frequency vibration, and evrything is moving as a spyral. If you look toward the center of the spiral you see more the materialisation, if towards the periphery you see more the spiritual part of life. Spirit and materia are just a different ways of looking at the same reality.

2)May be we have a different idea of "superstition". Not to play the professor,

but it is from latin "super-sto" , stand above. So when you think that in the world there is something or somebody above all you are superstitious.

So we can be superstitious when we think there is a god and make sacrifices to him, or when we think that science can solve all the problems of life, or that money is the most important thing.

World has not up and down, above and below,they are just point of vue like space and time.

3) Of course I agree that we have to play our part in life and take our responsability. I never said that we can do nothing about the god of money

Of course there is nothing mysterious or divine about money, exactly as there was nothing mysterious about the moon that was considered a goddess.

4) The problem of science is the fact that we have no more science, but technology instead, and we made the research losing the point of vue of the

"oneness" of world and life.

So we discover atoms, and then protons, electrons and photons and then we find that the world is not more what we were thinking about and that we cannot disciver "a reality" and when we can mesure an aspect the other is lost.

So we will go down, finding all the time smaller things, until we find ourselves investigatin something tendent to zero or, from the macroscopic point of vue we study something tendent to infinity. In both cases we will get lost ifwithout compass.

Books like "the Tao of Phisics" or "The dance of the Wu Li masters", can be a (little) example that you can arrive to the understanding of reality from two opposite directions: material or spiritual.

The best, in my idea, is, when speaking from one side, we never forget that there is also the opposite (equally true). There is not one truth but at least two ( and all the others in the middle....)

 

 

Sorry , I know that I can be very boring ..sometimes.

[draighox]

I disagree on the theory that the maximum richeable speed on this universe is the so called speed of light i.e. 300.000 Km/s

m = m0 / sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2)

 

You see? When speed approaches c, the mass approaches infinity.

 

But picture if you would, a world of nothing but Zen Buddists. Spiritual, hard-working, peaceful, and for our purposes, technologically innert.

And dying from variuos illnesses. And living about 35 - 40 years. Growing food, making clothes, working physicaly.

 

Now, picture a world of all aetheists and people who don't think about anything

spiritual. Face-paced, reckless, dependant on their gadgets and devices that give them the standard of rushing through everything, crippled by their own enlightenment and unable to accept meaning in anything removed from technology.

Dependant on their devices? Why not, if they help?

Crippled by their own enlightment? How?

Unable to accept meaning in anything removed from technology? What meaning is that?

 

Oh, please. This kind of phraseology is emotive as well as being misleading and dangerous. Why? Because by raising 'money' to this status we neatly abolish all responsibility for the state the world is in. We can't do anything about it - money is just too powerful...

No. It is our choice to do something about it - you could give your money to charity, you could choose to boycott companies which exploit third world countries, you could lobby governments to write off third world debt, you could make a point of buying only fair trade goods, you could enter politics and work towards a change in an economic system that currently is focussed on growth at the expense of poorer countries - but all this would involve you taking responsibility as a member of the human race.

Far easier to wail that nothing can be done against the god of money.....

Ha! At last we agree on something! =D

[Eiade]

I can't really back up most of this, because I don't really firmly believe it. I was just presenting an idea that has come to me from other people: that a reserved agrarian society consisting of people of all the same religion would last longer (not pertaining to individuals but to the world as a whole) than a reckless, short-sighted, technologically advanced society, at the opposite end of the spectrum. This whole thing is a big "what if?".

 

I'm not saying that we will end up like the science world that I have put forth, because I really don't think we will.

 

The argument against the spiritual world is that it would resemble the medieval times and would have similar down-points, such as disease, injustice, short brutal lives, and maybe even the same overpowered aristocracy. This is all out of speculation, but frankly I don't think our Buddhist society would be nearly as bad as certain medieval ones. The teachings of the Buddhist religion are that life is permeated with suffering caused by desire, that suffering ceases when desire ceases, and that enlightenment obtained through right conduct, wisdom, and meditation releases one from desire, suffering, and rebirth. With the entire society following such teachings, it would be a much more pleasant place to live than that of, say, 13th century England. They might be a little less susceptible to diseases, because Buddist teachings include cleanliness and discpline. They might live longer than the average person in 13th century England because they would have healthier bodies that recieve regular exercise and a more nutritious diet.

 

As far as our Buddhist world vs. the science world - I think there would be far less if not zero war in the Buddhist world, because they're all the same religion (that rules out most of our conflict :D ) and also because their religion shuns violence.

 

Be gentle.

 

PS -

I think Eiade's and thranduill's posts are prime examples of people clinging on to superstition in the absence of a scientific explanation.

 

Actually, the tendency for religions to cling to superstition in the absence of a scientific explanation is one of the reasons why I'm agnostic.

[ThetaOrionis01]

To Theta Orionis:

You make me think that I have to restart my studies of english.

1) I dont understand what is "blatant superstition": the fact that I see all the universe as a complexity of vibrations? This is the reality of the world: materia is just a low frequency vibration and so what we call "spirit" is just high frequency vibration, and evrything is moving as a spyral. If you look toward the center of the spiral you see more the materialisation, if towards the periphery you see more the spiritual part of life. Spirit and materia are just a different ways of looking at the same reality.

 

 

I presume you are not referring to the tenets of superstring theory when you describe the universe in terms of vibrations?

 

In your definition you use terms such as 'frequency'. Does that mean that you think that the 'spiritual' can be described in terms of physics and mathematics?

 

2)May be we have a different idea of "superstition". Not to play the professor,

but it is from latin "super-sto" , stand above. So when you think that in the world there is something or somebody above all you are superstitious.

So we can be superstitious when we think there is a god and make sacrifices to him, or when we think that science can solve all the problems of life, or  that money is the most important thing.

World has not up and down, above and below,they are just point of vue like space and time.

 

'Superstition', as defined at dictionary.com:

 

su·per·sti·tion  Audio pronunciation of "superstition" ( P )  Pronunciation Key  (spr-stshn)

n.

 

  1. An irrational belief that an object, action, or circumstance not logically related to a course of events influences its outcome.

  2.

        1. A belief, practice, or rite irrationally maintained by ignorance of the laws of nature or by faith in magic or chance.

        2. A fearful or abject state of mind resulting from such ignorance or irrationality.

        3. Idolatry.

 

 

[Middle English supersticion, from Old French superstition, from Latin superstiti, superstitin-, from superstes, superstit-, standing over. See st- in Indo-European Roots.]

 

 

 

 

4) The problem of science is the  fact that we have no more science, but technology instead, and we made the research  losing the point of vue of the

"oneness" of world and life.

 

Incorrect. Technology is the application of science, not a substitute for it. I would contend that a Grand Unified Theory would go much further towards achieving this point of view of the 'oneness of world and life' that you seek than any amount of mystical mumbo-jumbo.

 

 

So we discover atoms, and then protons, electrons and photons  and then we find that the world is not more what we were thinking about and that we cannot disciver "a reality" and when we can mesure an aspect the other is lost.

So we will go down, finding all the time smaller things, until we find ourselves investigatin something tendent to zero or, from the macroscopic point of vue we study something tendent to infinity. In both cases we will get lost ifwithout compass.

Books like "the Tao of Phisics" or  "The dance of the Wu Li masters", can be a (little) example that you can arrive to the understanding of reality from two opposite directions: material or spiritual.

 

 

Again, the further we get to understanding the very basics, the more are we able to see the connections. So I would strongly disagree with your opinion that we will 'get lost without a compass' - science is providing us with this very compass in helping us understand our surroundings, and our place within them. We might not like to be confronted with proof of our complete and utter insignificance, but that's hardly the fault of science.

 

If you haven't already read it, I'd recommend 'The Elegant Universe'.

 

The best, in my idea, is, when speaking from one side, we  never forget that there is also the opposite (equally true). There is not one truth but at least two ( and all the others in the middle....)

 

That's a very sweeping blanket statement, one of the kind that politicians and those with a poor grasp of the subject matter like to hide behind - it sounds grandiose but has actually very little content. The 'opposite' is not always equally true, and before you can claim that there is more than one truth, please define 'truth' in absolute terms first.