0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
The more I think about this the more I conclude that the whole business of Science is there merely to satisfy the human mind. Why 'should' there be an ultimate truth? A TOE may only be a construct of our brains / minds. Science has done very well to set up localised models which allow us to make fairly good predictions but what's to say that there has to be an ultimate reductionist truth?Science is very useful (it's been my 'thing' always) but is it really more than our brains' way of coping?
The LAWS must unify
I am all in favour of the reductionist Scientific Method and I think it is a great, pragmatic way of predicting things and developing technology BUT I think the assumption that there exists, somewhere, some sort of ultimate truth may be groundless.
Hence, to summarise - it seems that mathematics has always provided a stable, natural (?) language in which to describe phenomena but it may not be the ultimate 'natural' language of the universe! Einstein sought to understand ‘his [God's] equations’ but perhaps the 'universe' has been having a 'bit of a laugh' at our feeble efforts to describe it using mathematics! Perhaps the universal 'picture' will be clearer when we understand the universes’ own hidden language?/ Conclusion from a long math comment.Author unknown. /Quote JerryGG: I run into similar problems when I attempt to understand why positive dot-waves attract negative dot-waves and visa versa at a distance. Yet close up positive dot-waves merge into positive dot-waves. Whether my theory is true of not, we are faced with a problem that the universe operates on certain basic rules which are not easily understood. Then science degenerates into philosophy or meta-physics at the basic level. All we are left with is intuitive solutions. All our experiments are limited to interactions with electrons as the measuring probes. This is the limit of our experiments. Thus we cannot readily see beyond our measuring instruments.
JerryGG: I run into similar problems when I attempt to understand why positive dot-waves attract negative dot-waves and visa versa at a distance. Yet close up positive dot-waves merge into positive dot-waves. Whether my theory is true of not, we are faced with a problem that the universe operates on certain basic rules which are not easily understood. Then science degenerates into philosophy or meta-physics at the basic level. All we are left with is intuitive solutions. All our experiments are limited to interactions with electrons as the measuring probes. This is the limit of our experiments. Thus we cannot readily see beyond our measuring instruments.
Quote from: socratus on 10/07/2009 15:02:25Hence, to summarise - it seems that mathematics has always provided a stable, natural (?) language in which to describe phenomena but it may not be the ultimate 'natural' language of the universe! Einstein sought to understand his [God's] equations but perhaps the 'universe' has been having a 'bit of a laugh' at our feeble efforts to describe it using mathematics! Perhaps the universal 'picture' will be clearer when we understand the universes own hidden language?/ Conclusion from a long math comment.Author unknown. /Quote JerryGG: I run into similar problems when I attempt to understand why positive dot-waves attract negative dot-waves and visa versa at a distance. Yet close up positive dot-waves merge into positive dot-waves. Whether my theory is true of not, we are faced with a problem that the universe operates on certain basic rules which are not easily understood. Then science degenerates into philosophy or meta-physics at the basic level. All we are left with is intuitive solutions. All our experiments are limited to interactions with electrons as the measuring probes. This is the limit of our experiments. Thus we cannot readily see beyond our measuring instruments.==============================================================All our experiments are limited to interactions with electrons as the measuring probes. This is the limit of our experiments. Thus we cannot readily see beyond our measuring instruments. / JerryGG: / jerrygg38 /======== .So.1.The problem of understanding the microworld ( electron) existing is connected with the measuring.2.The measurement is connected with the measuring instruments.3.The region of using measuring instruments is limited.4.Does this limiting mean the end of our knowledge ?5.Or, maybe, is it possible to understand the microworld somehow in another way?====== .Does we have 'Theory of Knowledge' ?Of course. Maybe 1000.
Hence, to summarise - it seems that mathematics has always provided a stable, natural (?) language in which to describe phenomena but it may not be the ultimate 'natural' language of the universe! Einstein sought to understand his [God's] equations but perhaps the 'universe' has been having a 'bit of a laugh' at our feeble efforts to describe it using mathematics! Perhaps the universal 'picture' will be clearer when we understand the universes own hidden language?/ Conclusion from a long math comment.Author unknown. /Quote JerryGG: I run into similar problems when I attempt to understand why positive dot-waves attract negative dot-waves and visa versa at a distance. Yet close up positive dot-waves merge into positive dot-waves. Whether my theory is true of not, we are faced with a problem that the universe operates on certain basic rules which are not easily understood. Then science degenerates into philosophy or meta-physics at the basic level. All we are left with is intuitive solutions. All our experiments are limited to interactions with electrons as the measuring probes. This is the limit of our experiments. Thus we cannot readily see beyond our measuring instruments.==============================================================All our experiments are limited to interactions with electrons as the measuring probes. This is the limit of our experiments. Thus we cannot readily see beyond our measuring instruments. / JerryGG: / jerrygg38 /======== .So.1.The problem of understanding the microworld ( electron) existing is connected with the measuring.2.The measurement is connected with the measuring instruments.3.The region of using measuring instruments is limited.4.Does this limiting mean the end of our knowledge ?5.Or, maybe, is it possible to understand the microworld somehow in another way?====== .Does we have 'Theory of Knowledge' ?Of course. Maybe 1000.
1.The problem of understanding the microworld ( electron) existing is connected with the measuring.2.The measurement is connected with the measuring instruments.3.The region of using measuring instruments is limited.4.Does this limiting mean the end of our knowledge ?5.Or, maybe, is it possible to understand the microworld somehow in another way?====== .Does we have 'Theory of Knowledge' ?Of course. Maybe 1000.