NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #27/NN_1992_27.iso/spool/sci/physics/19191

Text File | 1992-11-18 | 7.2 KB | 154 lines

Newsgroups: sci.physics
Path: sparky!uunet!charon.amdahl.com!pacbell.com!sgiblab!darwin.sura.net!uvaarpa!murdoch!kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU!crb7q
From: [e-mail] (Cameron Randale Bass)
Subject: Re: Religion & Physics Don't Mix
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Organization: University of Virginia
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 20:40:32 GMT
Lines: 142

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Emmanuel Gustin) writes:
>[e-mail] (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
>: In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Emmanuel Gustin) writes:
>: >[e-mail] (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
>
>: >:      There are any number of religions that could claim that large
>: >:      elements of what you consider 'reality' are illusory.  Outside of
>: >:      science, you'd be hard-pressed to defend your 'reality' as any
>: >:      different from theirs.  Maybe you are living in *their* reality and all
>: >:      of our physical laws are simply illusions.
>: >
>: >1. But a scientist has to select a religion that accepts physical
>: >   laws, or create a new religion, or explain his beliefs in a
>: >   scientifically acceptable 'reality'. And this scientific reality is
>: >   quite hard to ignore even for the non-scientist.
>:
>:      A scientist has to do nothing of the sort.
>
>1. Erratum: I meant a RELIGIOUS scientist has to do this. Sorry.

     I still do not see why even a 'religious scientist' has to make
     his beliefs conform to science as long as those beliefs do not
     intrude into science or become mistaken for science.  After all,
     there are large numbers of scientists who believe that certain 'objects'
     *are* particles when you look at them in one way, and *are* waves
     when you look at them in another.

     Consider above *my* religious-scientific complementarity principle.

>2. As you wrote that 'science involves a very restricted subset of
>   realities', do you think this subset is all you need? If not, you will
>   have to consider other realities. And I think your 'realities' will
>   contain the 'scientific subset' and need to be consistent with it.

     It is all I need for science.  Outside, who is to say?  I could be
     a perfectly good scientist by 'playing the game by the rules' within
     science, all the while thinking the whole game an illusion outside
     of science.

>: >2. Are you saying that the 'reality of science' is not qualitatively different
>: >   from any (other) illusion? Then science is at most some kind of religion.
>: >   Would be nice for you, has one clearly cannot believe in TWO religions
>: >   at the same time.
>:
>:      Yes, 'the reality of science' runs by a fundamentally different
>:      set of rules.  It is not a religion.  The question of whether science
>:      is an illusion or not is not answerable within science so is
>:      completely moot within science.
>
>I don't exactly understand your position on this. Maybe science is an
>illusion. But then 'reality' is an illusion. But a reality that you can
>study in a scientific way is as real a reality as you will ever get. Maybe
>everything is just a dream, but TO US it is reality and then science is
>real. I agree that the question whether science is an illusion can't be
>answered within science; but it is irrelevant, both within and outside of
>science.

     My position is that it is undecidable.  The question of whether
     scientific reality is 'real' is unimportant for the process of
     science.  It is assumed 'real', then we proceed.

     Outside of science, one can certainly have different opinions
     as to what constitutes 'reality', and thus one could conceivably
     have a reality that included no part of scientific 'reality'.
     One could conceivably simply be playing a game that one found fun.

>:      Science proves nothing.  See our most recent thread on Popper.
>
>Sorry, I don't know what 'Popper' is.

     Sorry, Sir Karl Popper.  A rather not-currently-fashionable philosopher
     of science with a number of rather good and consistent ideas (speaking
     outside of science, of course).

>: >Example: '2+2=5' is 'clearly not true'. This is a scientific question with a
>: >scientific answer, and even religious people have to accept that 2+2=4.
>:
>:      Where did you get the idea that 2+2 = 4?  Take two protons (rest mass
>:      assumed to be 1) and another two protons  (again rest mass of 1),
>:      put them together and you get a helium atom with a rest mass somewhat
>:      less than 4 (in our assumed units).  Sometimes 2+2=4, sometimes it
>:      doesn't.
>:
>:      You are confusing mathematics with science.
>
>Oh no. Some things in physics are conserved (or at least we think (hope)
>that they are), e.g. energy, some not, e.g. mass. But that there is no
>conservation of mass does NOT mean that 2+2<>4. It only means that you
>have to consider the energy to get consistency. When you calculate that
>2+2=3.9998, you don't say 'Fine!' but 'Something's wrong here!'

     Just as an aside, as has been so succinctly stated in the FAQ, energy
     is not necessarily conserved in our current conceptual universe.

     However, I still think you are mistaking our tools for nature.  I could
     just as easily said 1+1=1, in that two deuterium atoms when placed
     together in the appropriate way (and with a hideously small branching
     ratio) can produce a helium atom.

>: >One can be sorry for it, and it of course has lots of disadvantages, but
>: >'general acceptance' is the way science often works. It is not the way
>: >religion works.
>:
>:      Actually, that is usually the way religion works too, ultimately.
>:      However, what difference does the sociology of religion make for
>:      the purposes of this discussion?
>
>We are discussing 'science and religion', I thought. Now science may or
>may not involve people (I don't even try to guess your opinion on this!)
>but religion does.

     I started this mess with a discussion of why science should
     stay out of strictly religious matters and vice verse.  I do
     not think that this is necessarily the place for a discussion of
     the sociology of religion, though the sociology of science may be OK.

>A religious truth stays a religious truth, and it is not important then
>how many people disagree with. A preacher will say 'Maybe 99.99% of people
>disagree with this, but is is TRUE!'. A (good) scientist will say 'Now
>this is my opinion -- but I have to admit that most other ...-ists disagree
>with it.'
>
>But I agree that sociologuy is not entirely to the point.

     We seem to be in agreement here.

>: >:      It is inappropriate to judge theology by the rules of science.
>: >
>: >Except when theology enters the realm of science.
>:
>:      My point exactly.
>
>How disappointing.

     Sorry, I'll use dayglo paint next time.

                           dale bass
--
C. R. Bass                                          [e-mail]
Department of Mechanical,
     Aerospace and Nuclear Engineering
University of Virginia                              [phone]