SOME PEOPLE SEEM to find my posts dealing with the limits of science to be aggravating and some seem to find them interesting, apparently the ones who come here looking to be aggravated by what they can expect to find here also find them interesting or at least entertaining. People like some excitement in their lives, they like being in some kind of lather over things, apparently.
I'll begin by saying that I value science and the scientific method for a lot of what it can legitimately tell us about the world and the recommendations it can make to us on how to do things better and more safely. I do that while knowing the limits of what it can do by the agreed to methods of science and knowing that those are frequently violated and the products of science either misstated or oversold. That is except when they're undersold, generally when the science is unwelcomed by the billionaire-millionaire-business class, the legal industry that serves their purposes and the general public who don't like to be inconvenienced even if it means it might save their lives or those of other people, the kind of people asshole Republican-fascists like Jim Jordan pander to and the right-wing media owned by the billionaire-millionares lie to.
No, with that level I got to the other day, I didn't by any means exhaust my problems with the ideology of materialism in regard to physics and cosmology and the sciences that may or may not mistakenly believe that everything they use scientific methods to study must revert back to the current findings of physicists and, Lord help us, theoretical physics and, so, cosmology claim about the material component of existence (though, as I pointed out, the topic of what exists isn't supposed to properly be the concern of physics, at least that's what physicists like Sabine Hossenfelder claim when they're not expounding on what doesn't exist on the basis of their expertise as physicists).
Take this little part of what I wrote so hastily the beginning of the week:
Where in their electrons are those characteristics and are they uniform? and if in even smaller units of the subatomic level of stuff, you could ask similar questions about all of those, the infinitely non-ending onion model of materialist faith. I wonder if they'll come to theorize objects so small that they couldn't possibly contain all of the information needed to account for what they are alleged to do, I think they already have. I remember one of the first things I thought of when I read about the conventionally included and totally absurd "many worlds" interpretation of quantum mechanics where the energy that was constantly creating universes whenever we so much as press a computer key was supposed to come from.
The two things, whether or not there is an absolute smallest unit of matter in which must reside all of the characteristics, all of the qualities that determine the characteristics of all of the larger objects made of those smallest units is intimately related to the question of the ultimate beginning of the one and only universe we know exists (though whether or not physics and, so, cosmology will someday turn on a dime - it will take decades for them to do it - and declare that the Big Bang turns out to be wrong is something I wouldn't bet on).
I have a huge question about both the never ending onion conception of nature in which there is always a smaller and ever more inaccessible lower level of material existence and the eternal universe(es) model of atheist ideological necessity in which if those are true, how can there be said to be ANY basic character of physical existence, the ultimate thing of materialist monism on which that atheistic faith is based and which modern science posits as a necessity when science is altered into an all encompassing ideology instead of a set of conventional, man-made rules (so frequently violated even within science) that do work to give us some approximations of reliable information on which we can make useful and fatally dangerous things and which is as important when it can help us and is dangerous when it isn't used morally.
If there is an ever lower level to either material existence at the subatomic level or the an ever earlier time in the universe, both the existence of and the character of ultimate universal laws, generally miscalled "laws of science" are dubious if not impossible to rationally believe in. Or, rather, only possible to believe in on the basis of choosing to believe in them, not on the basis of a program of logic and mathematical style proof. You can forget about the scientific requirement of observation because even at the levels we're talking about now, the possibility that human beings will ever be able to observe even the next lower levels is likely a fantasy.
So, you see, I have thought about these things and the next questions that come up way past the level at which even the theoreticians seem to be imagining things. I think one thing we can know is that none of that is known and the idea that it will ever be known is absurd. Not by human beings, I doubt by any species we want to imagine anywhere in the universe, certainly not on the basis of the human invention of scientific methods which the theoretician-atheist-matieralist-ideologues don't seem to have any use for, now.
I would still like to know how even an absolute, tiniest unit of material existence could contain all of the "information" that would allow it to determine every characteristic of every larger entity made of such "objects" since the world on even a subatomic level is extremely varied. Such a theorized unit would still not explain that variation except, I'd guess, on the basis of it having component units, I doubt it could be conceived of in the "simplicity" that it would have to have on the one hand and produce the demonstrable variety in effect that we already know it would have to produce.
I could go on with the problems of materialist-monist ideology but I think that's far enough right now. There are real and important things to think about, better things for scientists to deal with (pandemics, global-warming, feeding the hungry, caring for the sick) and things that science can't really handle (police murder of Black People, anti-Asian hate, the mass media turning the American People (and people everywhere) into the raw material of oligarchic fascism) things for which physics is entirely inadequate and which require the morality which none of science, by conventional agreement, even begins to take into consideration. I find that a lot more interesting than these stupid games of materialist-atheist-scientistic ideology - entertaining as those can be.
I'm a person, a human being, I believe my purpose in this life should be more concerned with what can be done instead of things which are (perhaps wisely kept) out of the realm of human understanding, competence and efficacy.
Update: OK, one more thing. I would guess that the varied character of perceived physical reality would point to the entire conception of monism being wrong and that that variety of observed reality would make some pluralistic framing of reality match observation more simply. In which case the entire modernistic, scientistic, materialistically monist (atheistic) framing of reality is wrong.
No comments:
Post a Comment