Sign in or 
Location: Thoughts on modern science...
Discussion: modern science
Category:
Discussion Forum /
General Discussion
Share this
Showing 5 posts
RodgerRicketts |
modern science
Nov 22 2009, 6:00 AM EST
I enjoyed skynelson's attempt to use quantum physics to theorize about synchronicity and his "deep conviction that science can explain, literally, everything.". His explaination has some intuitive sense to it. I say intuitive because if we go back to the basics of science we visit again that science is based on the scientific method which requires that after observation, hypothesis formulation and prediction, experiments be performed to confirm or rule out the hypothesis. Later a theory is put forth. Unfortunately, with synchronicity experimentation is missing and not possible, therefore, it will always remain in the realm of metaphyscics.Secondly, not all scientists have or do share the idea that science will or can "explain everything" I offer a few quotes which offer another point of view, "The entire universe has to be understood as a single, undivided whole, in which analysis into separately and independently existent parts has no fundamental status." Bohm or "...all knowledge in the conscious content is a differentiated system that cannot by definition articulate the universal principle of order." M Kafatos, R Nadeau or "There must exist, beyond mere appearances (...) a 'veiled reality' that science does not describe but only glimpses uncertainly. In turn, contrary to those who claim that matter is the only reality, the possibility that other means, including spirituality, may also provide a window on ultimate reality cannot be ruled out, even by cogent scientific arguments.” B.d'Espagnat 2 out of 2 found this valuable. Do you? |
skynelson |
1. RE: modern science
Nov 24 2009, 2:41 PM EST
Hi RodgerRicketts, thanks for the thoughtful commentary on my comments.I don't mean to say that science will objectively explain everything. What I mean is that our search for truth and meaning (that has led to our scientific method) will ultimately lead ever deeper into an understanding of ourselves and our place in the universe. The concept of what science is will need to grow and evolve in order to accomodate this, and I believe it can. One of the things that will need to be expanded, as you point out, is the inability of science to deal with subjective experiences. Scott Virden Anderson is particularly interested in this idea (www.svamd.org). The trick with synchronicity is that the physical details of a given synchronistic situation are unpredictable (and in my view, unimportant...they are, as we say, relative). What is 'absolute' and predictable is the meaning of the situation. The meaning of the situation is what determines the type of synchronistic events that happen, and this is a law that should be predictable and verifiable. I have not come up with the perfect experiment to test this, but I think it will need to be done. Relativity overall has shown us that the specific physical properties of space and time are relative (and essentially non-fundamental) properties, and I think we shouldn't be surprised to find that the general configuration of objects (or any actions that occur involving those objects) in physical space is also relative. It is the meaning inherent in that configuration that is important. I define 'science' as a 'quest for truth', and as such it will need to be able to expand it's methodologies to explain the great mystery of existence. 1 out of 1 found this valuable. Do you? |
|
RodgerRicketts |
2. RE: modern science
Dec 4 2009, 12:01 PM EST
Hi Skynelson,A good book on the scientific study of consciousness is 'The Vew from Within', edited by Francisco Varela and Jonathan Shear. It examines the possibility of the disciplined study of subjective states. I agree with you that science will and is developing different ways of understanding life esp. versus the reductionistic, positivistic, dualistic models. I must admit though that the idea that "The meaning of the situation is what determines the type of synchronistic events that happen" is still unclear to me. For example, the famous scarab of Jung's story of synchronicity had significant meaning for Jung and his patient. Ok, I understand that a meaning was constructed by this situation but my problem in understanding is that, say for a Freudian or Adlerian or existentialist, the meaning will be different. Or a rationalist no meaning occurs. How then is " What is 'absolute' and predictable is the meaning of the situation"? Is it that even though the meaning is different because of the background perspective of the subject, the fact that a meaning is placed on the event is the important thing and if no meaning is placed on the event then, because the person doesn't "believe" in meanings, it is the misfortune of the non-believing subject but the possibility is still inherent in the situation. Thanks, Rodger 1 out of 1 found this valuable. Do you? |
|
Posted Anonymously |
3. RE:
Jun 9 2010, 8:26 PM EDT
Make your life time easier get the <a href="http://lowest-rate-loans.com/topics/credit-loans">http://www.lowest-rate-loans.com</a> and everything you require.
0
out of
2 found this valuable.
Do you?
|
|
Posted Anonymously |
4. RE:
Jun 24 2010, 3:47 AM EDT
All people deserve good life and <a href="http://lowest-rate-loans.com/topics/home-loans">home loans</a> or short term loan can make it much better. Just because freedom relies on money state.
0
out of
1 found this valuable.
Do you?
|
