Limits to science and logical positivism

[Anonymous No.11050526]

>How did the world start?
Big Bang.
>Why did the Big Bang happen?
We don't know but we have theories.
>Can you reproduce it?
No.

>How did life begin?
Evolution.
>What started evolution?
We don't know but we have theories.
>Can you reproduce it?
No.

>What is consciousness?
Neural activity in the brain.
>What causes consciousness?
We don't know but we have theories.
>Can you reproduce it?
No.

[Anonymous No.11050532]

Evolution has been observed in microbes, or at least very rudimentary forms of it. Evolution is more of a broad term for generic mutations over time, leading to natural selection via statistical likelihood that you will survive to pass on your genes. Mutation has been observed, genes have been observed, natural selection has been observed. That's my counter to your proposal. What do you think would change your mind about evolution?

[Anonymous No.11050536]

>>11050532
Genetic*

[Anonymous No.11050540]

>>11050532
Way to misunderstand OP

[Anonymous No.11050556]

>>11050526
>What started evolution?

[Anonymous No.11050569]

>>11050532
What about the other ones?

[Anonymous No.11050580]

>>11050526
>How did this thread start?
A faggot.
>What causes faggotry?
We don't know but we have theories.
>Can you reproduce it?
Yes, OP is always a faggot.

[Anonymous No.11050624]

>>11050580
Based

[Anonymous No.11050672]

>>11050526
... therefore: GOD

that's what you wanted to hear, amiright?

[Anonymous No.11050754]

>>11050526
>Evolution.
>What started evolution?
We don't know but we have theories.
>Can you reproduce it?
>No.
we have literally seen bacteria evolve

[Anonymous No.11050766]

>>11050526
>>How did the world start?
Bazinga
>>Why did the Big Bang happen?
Incels
>>Can you reproduce it?
Please God no.

[Anonymous No.11050779]

Why are brainlets so afraid of the idea that we don't know everything yet? When that's exactly the entire point of science.

[Anonymous No.11050784]

>>11050779
cause they're desperate to convince themselves they know better and figured everything out by believing in the kike on a stick

[Anonymous No.11050810]

>>11050784
>kike
why the antisemitism though?

[Anonymous No.11050811]

>>11050810
"kike on a stick" is a common 4chan phrase. I'm not a nazi jew hater but you can't deny their nepotism is disgusting

[Anonymous No.11050867]

>>11050811

oyyyy veyyyy its liek anuddah shoah were 6 million billion trillion chosens died

[Anonymous No.11051048]

>>11050526
>NOOOOOO!!!!
>DON'T THINK ABOUT THE GREAT COSMIC MYSTERY!!!
>IT'S UNSOLVABLE!!!

[Anonymous No.11051069]

>>11050526
You came to /sci/ thinking you were smart. But you're not. You aren't even smart enough to realize that by asking the questions you ask (and answering them yourself) that you reveal your own level of stupidity and lack of education/information. What a dumbass!

[Anonymous No.11051076]

>>11050526
So what’s the point of this thread?
We don’t know everything. Wow.
And?

[Anonymous No.11051082]

>>11051076
must mean old sky man real

[Anonymous No.11051133]

>>11050526
Of course there are limits to science. That is because there are limits to human consciousness/understand. But I honestly think you should start here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Informal_logic

[Anonymous No.11051134]

>>11050526
>>How did life begin?
>Evolution.
>>What started evolution?
Kek and Kekker

[Anonymous No.11051158]

>>11050526
Any human activity has limits, what's your point.
Only religion has certainty, fuck off back to >>>/x/ with that.

[Anonymous No.11051167]

>Dennett

[Anonymous No.11051205]

>>11051158
>only religion has certainty

False certainty

[Anonymous No.11051365]

>>11050526
Great post. Saddens me to see scientific explanations reach the same level of superficial repetition that religion previously held the award for. My primary criticism of the modern, mainstream scientific narrative concerns the nature of information itself. Namely, that the information we know of cannot be spoken of without the channels in which it exists to be spoken of simultaneously. For example, everything you see with your eyes is visual data - the combination of light entering the eye and the brain subsequently interpreting it into an image (though the contradiction in that narrative is how the brain, itself an object of vision, could therefore be said to exist within the process of vision itself, given the circularity invoked). Everything you have ever seen and will ever see is visual. The sky, the sun, the stars, the trees, the oceans, and so forth. If you ever speak of any entity, you're speaking of the mediums it was known to you through: speaking of something visual, like the sun, you're speaking of a) vision, the medium of any visual b) the sun, the object of vision and c) consciousness, the container of all information.

How, then, do scientists simultaneously speak about astronomical statistics and of evolutionary ones, when the former data is contained within the latter? How could the eye be claimed to have "evolved", while the stars and sun which the eye has shown to us simultaneously claimed to exist before said eye itself existed? Similarly, time itself has only been known through consciousness, and therefore anytime the past is spoken of, be it 4 seconds ago or 14 billion years ago, you're merely taking the data of your present experience, and extrapolating it backwards. Consciousness would therefore still be implicated, in that equation. Speaking about the universe, 14 billion years ago? You're speaking about yourself, 14 billion years ago. Speaking about the stars and the sun a few billion years ago? Same thing, but with the eye. (1/2)

[Anonymous No.11051373]

>>11051365
m8 yer avin a manic epi phone up yer shrink right quick

[Anonymous No.11051377]

>>11051373
BASED

[Anonymous No.11051381]

>>11050526
I've attached a diagram showing a speculative trajectory for the evolution of the eye. The fundamental problem I find with it is that in the first diagram, it uses VISUAL information to showcase the origin of visual information. It would be the equivalent of a person using sound to describe the origin of sound. It does not make sense. If you're using visual data to display the origin of visual data, you've already beat yourself to your punch - you were supposed to depict the origin of the type of information you're depicting, which must necessarily be of a different format than the information you depict it with.

I firmly believe that vision is eternal, and the eye has always existed. We have spirit bodies, which NDE's and astral travel reports document, which also have visual, aural, and other types of sensory apparatus. The sun you see in the sky, is inseparable from your very eye. By that I don't mean it disappears when you don't look up at it, but that reality is like a simulation or a video game - everyone's individual screen happens to be the same as that very environment itself. In a videogame, you don't separate your own perspective from the world it shows - you recognize that they are one. The environment and the camera displaying it are the same thing. This is true of actual reality also. The external environment you view is yourself, and you are yourself that.

That's not to say I'm a theist or that I deny evolution - I merely deny the narrative we've presently been taught, involving a universe which was strictly "naturalistic" for billions of years before living species entered it and evolved enough to be able to experience it, and is now experienced by them in the form evolution brought to them. It simply doesn't make sense to me - we ourselves can only speak of the universe in the terms which we ourselves contain, therefore everything we know of the universe is inextricably connected to ourselves. (2/2)

[Anonymous No.11051387]

>>11051365
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JLstJH23p7k

[Anonymous No.11051623]

>>11050526
science is inherently limited because it's based on induction instead of deduction.

[Anonymous No.11051736]

>>11051381
This might be the stupidest post I’ve read in the past day, or maybe the funniest troll post.

[Anonymous No.11051824]

>>11050526
>>How did the world start?
>Big Bang.
No. The universe started with a hyper-rapid expansion quaintly called the "Big Bang." The world started as an aggregation of material in concert with the formation of the solar system as a whole.

[Anonymous No.11051851]

>>11050526
Life didn’t begin through evolution you mong

[Anonymous No.11051868]

>>11050569
legal reasons and lack of proper equipment.
>>11050580
TIP KEK
>>11050766
based
>>11050779
They are hysterical. They think a perfect and satisfying answer must be simple and accessible.
>>11051167
actually kind of based
>>11051824
proof?

[Anonymous No.11051944]

>>11051167
>Anon sets up his own flawed argument and then refutes it
>passes this off as logic

I-is this the true power of free will brainlets?

[Anonymous No.11051966]

>>11051167
That greentext is rly stoopid

[Anonymous No.11052400]

>>11051736
Please refute it then, anon. I'm certainly not trolling.

[Anonymous No.11052403]

>>11050526
evolution is true a priori anyway.

[Anonymous No.11052442]

>>11050526
>>What started evolution?
it has allways been going on.
>>Can you reproduce it?
yes

[Anonymous No.11052448]

>>11051133
there are not even due to limits of human understanding but by limits of resources and time for testing

[Anonymous No.11052452]

>>11050526
the universe has infinite space on it, so its infinite.
it didnt start with a big bang, the point is that it didnt start infinity has no start to it just other forms

besides: mass cannot be destroyed or created only transformed
here you have the answer, nothing ever "began" beginnings dont exist only transformation

big bangs could happen tho various supernovas can happen at once and all adds fuel to the explosion which grows bigger and bigger in a chain reaction. but it can never cover all of space infinity, anything fits out in space.

This is why i stopped believing in theories. Its contradictory to the scientific method.

on consciousness they are correct.
what causes conciousness I would just say nutrition. seriously dont eat, dont drink water and you are gonna fucking lose it probably forever. the physic reductionists and externalists are right and beat philosocucks to shreds when it comes to the le "philosophy of mind"

[Anonymous No.11052471]

>>11051824
no
the word universe implies all of space, all of matter, everything
recite me the law of the conservation of energy/mass
so far nothing has proven that law incorrect. creators (or destroyers) dont exist.

the big bang theory is wrong. space doesnt has to expand either as if it came about from an starting point. what was outside that point then?
'anti-space"? of course not, none of that scifi shit. even if you somehow have an "Starting Point" outside the point there is space, and space always has matter on it.

[Anonymous No.11052519]

>>11050526
add this nigger to the theoretical physic memers too: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lM_HPAXwJFw

all they do is parrot bullshit for hype media click bait. this is how science makes money this days.

Stephen Hawkings was a big offender too im glad he is dead. Nowhere near the legacy of Einstein which actually used the scientific method.

[Anonymous No.11052525]

>>11050526
>hurr durr muh reproducibility, muh falsifiability, muh experiments

Your daily reminder that observation and post-diction are just as valid tools of science as prediction.

[Anonymous No.11052526]

>>11050526
Evolution has been observed in multiple types of large organisms such as birds and lizard, theres also concrete evidence of it genetically.

[Anonymous No.11052534]

>>11050526
You don't have to reproduce evolution, it "re"produces its self

[Anonymous No.11052558]

>>11052526
>>11052534
evolution is not a theory anymore. it confirmed itself in the fashion of the scientific method. nutrition and reproduction define evolution. You can apply Physical Reductionism to evolution and it makes sense. Besides its observable, sensuous Darwing realized the families of generations of domestic ducks had heavier and stronger legs than their wings unlike wild ducks which are lighter on their feet and heavier on their wings.

>>11052525
that doesnt means they are true and most of these are unironically sci fi bullshit fuck modern theorists. its the worst that has happened to science besides medieval Christianity.

[Anonymous No.11052616]

>>11050526
>>How did the world start?
>Big Bang.

I mean, I already knew you weren't going to have anything meaningful or accurate to say, but I have to appreciate you coming out and admitting it in your first three lines.

[Anonymous No.11052628]

>>11051381
You can use the same type of information to prove something about the information.

For example take the proof that there are an infinite number of integers: a simple proof by contradiction. Assume that there are finitely many numbers so we have the greatest number A. We can add 1 to A to leave the set of finitely many numbers. A+1 is also a number which contradicts our assumption. Therefore there are infinitely many numbers.

We have used numbers to prove a fact about the numbers, all inductive proofs will have this form. And it is perfectly valid, there is no logical rule against this.

[Anonymous No.11052632]

>>11052628
> Assume that there are finitely many numbers so we have the greatest number A
Okay
>We can add 1 to A to leave the set of finitely many numbers.
Uh..?
>A+1 is also a number which contradicts our assumption.
But-
>Therefore there are infinitely many numbers.
???

[Anonymous No.11052635]

>>11050526
>can’t explain something?
>magic, invisible, floating faggot in the sky
>floating faggot requires no explanation

[Anonymous No.11052687]

>>11052628
That's not what I was trying to communicate, anon. I completely understand the nature and necessity of tautological truths, which isn't what I was describing here. My issue with the notion of the eye's evolution, and the postulated diagram for how it happened, is that of visual information being used to display the supposed "origination" of visual information itself. The eye can't see outside of itself - it's own nature is seeing, of course. And anyone who therefore tries to showcase the origination of vision, will be forced to use visual elements to depict it - namely, color and shape. But our aim was showcasing the origination of color and shape, and yet you've already included them in your assertion of how they originated. Observe the first panel. The diagram of the eye's origins, already uses the visual information contained within the eye itself. Color, and shape. So how could that first panel exist, before the eye which it is seen in and contains the contents of to as well? How does color and shape exist before vision does, if both are one?

And secondly, how could anything sensorial somehow precede the instrument it is beheld through? If everything you see is beheld by your eye, then your eye must always be implicated in discussions of said items. If the sun, moon, stars and earth that we observe are observed through the eye, then these entities can't be spoken of without the eye being spoken of too. It would be like speaking of scent prior to the formation of the nose, or taste before a tongue existed. The medium and the data it contains are the same, are they not?

[Anonymous No.11052690]

>>11052628
Also, I'm not this anon >>11052632. That was someone else.

[Anonymous No.11052723]

>>11052471
big bang works with conservation of energy via inflation.

Space in GR is either flat, compact or hyperbolic, none requiring an “outside”

[Anonymous No.11052743]

>>11050526
>conflating theories and hypothesises
>>11052519
>scientific method spook

[Anonymous No.11052746]

>>11050569
Big Bang - Energy cannot be created or destroyed OVER TIME. No time at/before the Big Bang so our observations have not been violated.

Consciousness - Means something different for many people. Often confused with intelligence. Should mean "aware experience."

Never forget that all you are is a bundle of neurons. And even that itself is a concept. All we have are concepts.

[Anonymous No.11052750]

>>11052632
Can you not add 1 to A?

[Anonymous No.11052757]

Energy is not globally conserved in General Relativity. As with most things, the law of conservation of energy is an approximation suited for our everyday experience, but does not apply to universe as a whole.

Then there is cosmic Inflation, which grossly violated global conservation of energy, and there is nothing wrong with this.

[Anonymous No.11052761]

>>11052687
>>11052687
The concept of the eye is not visual information, visual information existed before the eye. Visual information began when God wrote Maxwell's equations which was the very first thing God did on this project. The eye is a tool which allows us to access visual information.

[Anonymous No.11053012]

>>11052757
retarded and wrong.
the point of inflation is that it’s a theory that maintains conservation of energy at all stages of the universe

[Anonymous No.11053075]

>>11052558
I`m still stumped by the absolute retardation of people who don`t know the difference between theory and hypothesis.

[Anonymous No.11053084]

>>11052471
> what was outside that point then?

You don’t understand cosmic inflation cosmology and as such can’t argue against it.

[Anonymous No.11053086]

>>11052558
Evolution is a phenomenon, like gravity, not a theory. It has theories OF it.

[Anonymous No.11053095]

>>11053086
not really

[Anonymous No.11053110]

>>11053086
No, evolution is definitely a theory. The phenomenas here are random mutations and natural selection

[Anonymous No.11053112]

>>11050526
>homophobe
>incel
>jew
All three go in the trash. But who's the fourth guy?

[Anonymous No.11053117]

>>11053110
natural selection isn’t a physically observable force or substance its a construct from our models that makes useful predictions. try again.

[Anonymous No.11053120]

>>11051381
I'm liking this high iq bait

[Anonymous No.11053122]

>>11053117
Phenomena =/= "observable force or substance"

[Anonymous No.11053136]

>>11053110
> No, evolution is definitely a theory

No it isn’t. Punctuated equilibrium is a theory.

>The phenomenas here are random mutations and natural selection

That’s just evolution.

[Anonymous No.11053144]

>>11053136
A theory is a "story" for a lack of a better word, or analogy if you will, that explains phenomenas that we observe. They are never themselves phenomena, they rather fit the phenomena together to explain their unity. This is not hard to understand. A theory within science also needs to be generally accepted by the community

[Anonymous No.11053149]

>>11053122
The word has no significance if its not referring to a physical object or force, there is no such thing as selection, we observe where selection is happening our models and traces of selection. This is distinct from any other physical theory in science but the vindication of our use of this model is the existence of changes in allele frequency and observable phenotypes. None of the constructs of theoretical evo bio and genetics are real except the molecular and physiological changes themselves. We have no proof without them and because these do exist in vast abundance evolution denial is unacceptable to anyone with a decent sense of intellectual honesty.

[Anonymous No.11053156]

>>11053149
I don't understand your point. You are saying natural selection is not a phenomena because it is ultimately not a physical force or a physical object but emerges from chemistry, yet you are fine with calling evolution which itself depends on other phenomenas, that you don't really call phenomenas, a theory?

[Anonymous No.11053158]

>>11053156
>that you don't really call phenomenas, a theory*?'
A phenomena*

[Anonymous No.11053159]

>>11053144
> A theory is a "story" for a lack of a better word, or analogy if you will, that explains phenomenas that we observe. They are never themselves phenomena, they rather fit the phenomena together to explain their unity.

Theories are models of some aspect of the natural world that possess explanatory and predictive power. Calling evolution a “theory” is nonsensical as it is simply a phenomenon to be explained by theories. Things change over time. Lamarckism and Darwinian evolution were competing hypothesis of evolution, seeking to explain this change over time and its mechanisms. Darwinian evolution superseded Lamarckism, and was itself superseded by the “Modern Synthesis” just as Newtonian gravity was superseded by relativity.

[Anonymous No.11053169]

>>11053156
I don’t consider evolution a real physical force since it would be a poor substitute for the laws of physics. Evolutionary theory is the current most accurate explanation for long term changes in large numbers of biological systems, selection is the means by which we can predict where certain kinds of changes will occur based on the suitability of a given phenotype in an environment, mutation has a literal physical correlate in molecular changes within organisms and phenotypes are just abstracts of physiological and morphological changes

[Anonymous No.11053175]

>>11053169
How would you classify the words then; evolution, natural selection and mutation. Which are phenomena, which are a theory and which are something else

[Anonymous No.11053387]

>>11053175
>evolution
theory
>selection
element of model representing the theory
>mutation
physical changes in the genome and also mathematical representation with models of the theory

[Anonymous No.11053399]

>How did life begin?
Abiogenesis
>How did the diversitiy in life appeared?
Evolution

[Anonymous No.11053545]

>>11050766
>>>Why did the Big Bang happen?
>Incels

That's absurd, by definition incels don't get any kind of banging, big or small.