Can Everything be Reduced to Pure Physics?

[Tom McCurdy]

Everything theortically could be broken down into pure physics, that does not however imply that we will ever even come close to being able to do this.

 

[Philocrat]

Isn't that what this conversation is about? I don't think anyone has tried to change the scope of science. Most of the threads on this topic are similar to this one in that they are discussing whether science "can" explain the gaps. All this seems within the realm of philosophy to me.

True...but has philosophy as of yet been able to explain the remainder? Would you then accept that philosophy has its own headaches too; often riddled with a huge catalogue of unsolved issues that run time and time again into a stalemate, and, in some very notorious instances, into 'HARDCORE SCEPTICISM'? This is why I pointed out earlier on that explaining the remainder is no longer exclusive to philosophy; it is now a multidisciplinary venture! Either we accept this, or a separate discipline be created to explain it, or equally science itself be revised and extended to do so. I am sorry to sitll put my finger on this button...they look more and more like plausible alternitives.

 

[Fliption]

True...but has philosophy as of yet been able to explain the remainder? Would you then accept that philosophy has its own headaches too; often riddled with a huge catalogue of unsolved issues that run time and time again into a stalemate, and, in some very notorious instances, into 'HARDCORE SCEPTICISM'? This is why I pointed out earlier on that explaining the remainder is no longer exclusive to philosophy; it is now a multidisciplinary venture! Either we accept this, or a separate discipline be created to explain it, or equally science itself be revised and extended to do so. I am sorry to sitll put my finger on this button...they look more and more like plausible alternitives.

Philosphy is not a separate branch of study distinguished from any science. Philosophy has an encompassing scope of all branches of study. Science is simply an investigative tool of philosphy. Currently there is an explanatory gap in science with regard to consciousness. The role and scope of the philosopher is to analyze that fact with the methods of inquiry and adjust if necessary. That is exactly what's happening here. The suggestion has been made by philosophers that the reason there is an explanatory gap is because there is a tool missing in the toolbox of fundamental parts that science currently uses.

 

[Philocrat]

What missing tool may that be exaclty? If there is one, it seems to point to the second or third explanatory option that I suggested above...Create a separate discipline to close the gap or extend physics or science as a whole to do so. Who says that a voodoo discipline might not explain it either? But supposing you did all these things and the vexing gap still remained? What would you do? Well, an even more chilling suggestion that I made earlier and elsewhere is that, we may have to disolve the human form and redesign it from cratch in order to close that gap, should all the attempts in our present human form fail.

 

[Fliption]

It is simple really. Science cannot reductively explain consciousness perhaps because it cannot be reduced. It's the same for all fundamental elements.

 

[Philocrat]

Philosphy is not a separate branch of study distinguished from any science. Philosophy has an encompassing scope of all branches of study. Science is simply an investigative tool of philosphy.

On this, you are right to a degree. Russell's observation of this in 1912 seems to be to the contrary. That is, all other disciplines detached themselves from philosophy as soon as they found their 'practicality'. That one day the term 'philosophy' may very well evaporate. I am still undecided as to whether to tow your line or Russell's. It seems as if in Russll's version, why philosophy still hangs around is mainly to inspect and ensure that all its children that divorced from it can survive on their own without any further help. Your version is new to me, that's why I am curious.

Admittedly, either way, the inspectory role of philosophy is without any dispute, except only on the question of its shelf life.

 

[Philocrat]

It is simple really. Science cannot reductively explain consciousness perhaps because it cannot be reduced. It's the same for all fundamental elements.

What I am currently curious about is you calling philosophy science, as there are other disciplines other than science disciplines (physics, biology, psychology etc) that were also once part of philosophy. Theology is one such candidate. Is Theology, the intellectual wing of religion, science? In fact, you hit it on the head, for this is precisely what the American Chrisitians are currently trying to do. While Christianity in Europe remains predominantly orthodoxical, American Christianity is turning itself into science...mostly brought about by the fierce intellectual battle between the creationists and evolutionists.
______________________________________________
The Religious Theory: This fundamentally states that God is the Prime Mover (a self-created Being) and that God is the creator of everything else, our universe especially. God is an intelligent designer. The term creationism is the name currently used to label this claim.

http://www.icr.org/creationscientists/physicalscientists.html (Physical Scientists who are also creationists or ‘Creation Scientists’ as they are otherwise preferably called)

http://www.icr.org/creationscientists/biologicalscientists.html (Biologists as creationists).
___________________________________________________

As the above links suggest, the creationists are now adopting sceintific methods to justify their thesis, and from the above links, it is not clear whether scientists listed on those sites are recruited to investigate the creationist thesis further or as a mere endorsemnet of their thesis.

However, whatever is the case, this does highlight my point about the need for you to clarify your position with regards to calling philosophy science.

 

[Fliption]

It seems as if in Russll's version, why philosophy still hangs around is mainly to inspect and ensure that all its children that divorced from it can survive on their own without any further help. Your version is new to me, that's why I am curious.

Admittedly, either way, the inspectory role of philosophy is without any dispute, except only on the question of its shelf life.

There will always be the activities that I am calling philosophy. Could it be called something else one day? Sure. But the actions of stepping outside of our methods of inquiry and judging their relevance will always be valid. I'd hate to see the day this isn't the case. Scientists have been preoccupied with practicality because that's what science does. But once that progress slows in certain areas (consciousness), then it is natural for us as seekers of knowledge to start questioning some assumptions. This act is what I call philosophy. We all do it eventually, even scientists.

 

[Philocrat]

There will always be the activities that I am calling philosophy. Could it be called something else one day? Sure. But the actions of stepping outside of our methods of inquiry and judging their relevance will always be valid. I'd hate to see the day this isn't the case. Scientists have been preoccupied with practicality because that's what science does. But once that progress slows in certain areas (consciousness), then it is natural for us as seekers of knowledge to start questioning some assumptions. This act is what I call philosophy. We all do it eventually, even scientists.

Your version is quite interesting and is beginning to affect Russell's version in my head. Let's clear up a few things:

1) Are you re-defining philosophy? For so it seems. Come to think of it, I never really thought of the proper definition of it. I just went by what the ancient philosophers said of it (the Love of wisdom) and by Russell's account in 1912 of the nature and fate of philosophy.

2) Are you saying that not only is philosophy the love of and search for knowledge, but also it is frankly science and that any new discipline that comes into existence automatically becomes part of it?

3) If so, would theology or a voodoo discipline pass as one? I am still as curious as ever on this one.

Problem: Well, Russell's version suggests that many topics are constantly detaching themselves from philosophy as soon as they find their practicalities, and that sooner or later there may no more be any philosophy. Well, if your answers to questions (1), (2) and (3) are what I am suspecting, it means that you are implying that philosophy is here to stay. Well, which version should we choose?

 

[Fliption]

1) Are you re-defining philosophy? For so it seems. Come to think of it, I never really thought of the proper definition of it. I just went by what the ancient philosophers said of it (the Love of wisdom) and by Russell's account in 1912 of the nature and fate of philosophy.

I don't believe I am redefining it. The love and pursuit of wisdom and knowledge is exactly what I think it is. So the act of creating and critiquing the scientific method is a philosophical exercise. Science itself is merely one method for obtaining knowledge.

2) Are you saying that not only is philosophy the love of and search for knowledge, but also it is frankly science and that any new discipline that comes into existence automatically becomes part of it?

Any disciplline that contributes to "knowledge" would be a tool of philosophy and therefore critique of this new discipline is within the scope of philosophy.

3) If so, would theology or a voodoo discipline pass as one? I am still as curious as ever on this one.

If these disciplines contribute to knowledge then they would indeed be tools of philosophy. How do we know whether they truly contribute to knowledge? This question too is a question for philosophy.

Problem: Well, Russell's version suggests that many topics are constantly detaching themselves from philosophy as soon as they find their practicalities, and that sooner or later there may no more be any philosophy. Well, if your answers to questions (1), (2) and (3) are what I am suspecting, it means that you are implying that philosophy is here to stay. Well, which version should we choose?

It sounds as if the usage you're referring to is treating philosphy as if it is a topic that one prints into a textbook. This is a topic that one can choose to study or "major in". I can definitely see how this separate field of study could become useless as a distinct entity if enough people thought it wasn't practical to study what Descarte thought centuries ago. But anytime someone reasons through an answer to the question "Can science tell us X?", this is a philosphical act. If all disclipines split off from philosophy then they will either adopt this responsibility on their own to answer these types of questions or our "knowledge" will have very little credibility.

 

[Philocrat]

(1) The love and pursuit of wisdom and knowledge is exactly what I think it is. So the act of creating and critiquing the scientific method is a philosophical exercise. Science itself is merely one method for obtaining knowledge.

(2) Any disciplline that contributes to "knowledge" would be a tool of philosophy and therefore critique of this new discipline is within the scope of philosophy.

(3) If these disciplines contribute to knowledge then they would indeed be tools of philosophy. How do we know whether they truly contribute to knowledge? This question too is a question for philosophy.

(4) But anytime someone reasons through an answer to the question "Can science tell us X?", this is a philosphical act. If all disclipines split off from philosophy then they will either adopt this responsibility on their own to answer these types of questions or our "knowledge" will have very little credibility.

So, (1) to (4) must so be what philosophy is...I am now settled in my head what philosophy is. I agree with you that philosophy must hang around until the whole business of knowing all there is to be known is done. Yes, philosophy is here to stay:

1) To inspect the inspector

2) To examine the examiner

3) To subject all statements of fact (existential, declaratory, logical and quantitative claims), regardless of the discipline, to critical scrutiny.

Outstanding Question: Can philosophy inspect, examine, and scrutinise without being prescriptive? That is, can it describe without prescribing?

 

[Philocrat]

Now, Let us return back to the question: 'can everything be reduced to pure physics? The voting result as it currently stands seems to suggest precisely this. What does this mean?

1) Inter-disciplinary reductions are possible?

2) Everything learned in every other discipline is reducible to physics?

Well, this voting result apart, this does not eliminate the outstanding belief that there is a remainder or an explanatory gab, or the hard problem or whatever we might wish to call it. The question now is shouldn't we approach this question in a different way? For example, start by examining the possibility of (1) and (2)? If inter-disciplinary reductionism is a viable venture, shouldn't we start by looking at how one disicipline reduces to another and finally to physics? At the moment, it looks as if there is a disagreement on this. Some disciplines don't even like the idea, let alone putting their heards together to look at its possbility. Take, for example, the notion of reduction of Biology to physics, it looks as if the biologists are unhappy with this idea.

THE LOGICAL PROBLEM: If everything is reducible to physics, from discipline to discipline to physics, then there is no such thing as 'inter-disciplinary explanation' that the voting demands. The voting should not include an option for a multi-disciplinary explanation, since interdisciplinary reductionism would transport all exaplantions to physics? But is this really the case?

 

[Les Sleeth]

Outstanding Question: Can philosophy inspect, examine, and scrutinise without being prescriptive? That is, can it describe without prescribing?

Of course it can, but then what's the point of having philosophy? If the goal of philosophy is wisdom, isn't the reason for valuing wisdom because of its ability to improve the quality of one's personal conscious experience? I do know some philosophy professor-types whose heads are filled with just about nothing but "descriptions," but never seem to have experimented with any of it. Nerds and curmudgeons the lot!

The idea of someone being merely an "expert" in others' philosophy seems like a contradiction to the original meaning of the word. Philosophy is a way to predict how aspects of reality work which we are uncertain of, that have consequences to our lives, and which we have an opportunity to either affect or adjust to. If we say a human being is most fulfilled when indulging in every possible sensual pleasure, how can we find out if that is a good philosophy? As long as it remains only a description, we will never know. But once, as a seeker of truth, we try out our descriptive concepts, then they become prescriptive in our own personal laboratory of life. Of course, then the responsibility is on us to honestly evaluate how our philosophy is working.

Back to the point of this thread, in science one often runs into a type of mind that is content with understanding the mechanical relationships between physical things, and in fact insist there is nothing more (mostly because they never thing about anything else). If you try to talk about "what it means" (i.e., something relevant to the development of one's own consciousness), you may find yourself listening to a lecture about neuronal processes, or how evolution has shaped consciousness, or just the person you are talking to snoring :zzz:. So be it. Either one is interested in wisdom or one isn't.

 

[Philocrat]

Of course it can, but then what's the point of having philosophy? If the goal of philosophy is wisdom, isn't the reason for valuing wisdom because of its ability to improve the quality of one's personal conscious experience? I do know some philosophy professor-types whose heads are filled with just about nothing but "descriptions," but never seem to have experimented with any of it. Nerds and curmudgeons the lot!

The idea of someone being merely an "expert" in others' philosophy seems like a contradiction to the original meaning of the word. Philosophy is a way to predict how aspects of reality work which we are uncertain of, that have consequences to our lives, and which we have an opportunity to either affect or adjust to. If we say a human being is most fulfilled when indulging in every possible sensual pleasure, how can we find out if that is a good philosophy? As long as it remains only a description, we will never know. But once, as a seeker of truth, we try out our descriptive concepts, then they become prescriptive in our own personal laboratory of life. Of course, then the responsibility is on us to honestly evaluate how our philosophy is working.

Back to the point of this thread, in science one often runs into a type of mind that is content with understanding the mechanical relationships between physical things, and in fact insist there is nothing more (mostly because they never thing about anything else). If you try to talk about "what it means" (i.e., something relevant to the development of one's own consciousness), you may find yourself listening to a lecture about neuronal processes, or how evolution has shaped consciousness, or just the person you are talking to snoring :zzz:. So be it. Either one is interested in wisdom or one isn't.

Precisely the point...that's the puzzling feature of philosophy that often frustrates me like a jungle. It's like a plane that flies endlessly and refusing to land. When philosophical arguments descriptively hang in a logical space endlessly, refusing to ground themselves, I just feel profoundly frustrated and edgy. So, philosophy, being the love of wisdom and with its inspectory role well-established within the intellectual realm, oughts to be able to ground at least some of its arguments, even when it's only inspecting what is stated or given.

 

[Philocrat]

Should we give up the notion of reductionism? How should Reductionism be approached in the context of discipline-to-discipline and to physics, if any?

 

[Les Sleeth]

Precisely the point...that's the puzzling feature of philosophy that often frustrates me like a jungle. It's like a plane that flies endlessly and refusing to land. When philosophical arguments descriptively hang in a logical space endlessly, refusing to ground themselves, I just feel profoundly frustrated and edgy. So, philosophy, being the love of wisdom and with its inspectory role well-established within the intellectual realm, oughts to be able to ground at least some of its arguments, even when it's only inspecting what is stated or given.

If you had a boat on a planet that was only made up of water, then you would be happy that it never "landed" since the only land to be found is at the bottom of the oceans. If you will allow my humble opinion, the problem you are having stems from insisting only something final, definite, decided, settled has value. And true, with science one can come fairly close to that. That's the great thing about science.

But philosophy is the thing that stays open, searching, undecided. It is precisely those qualities which appeal to wisdom seekers. Do you want a world all settled, without art or intuition or love? Why not appreciate both that which can give closure, as well as that which leaves things open?

 

[Philocrat]

But a 'settled state' tends to have always been the most desirable one. Why float aimlessly? Settled state has many names. Some call it perfection and some call it whatever they like, yet all these names aim at one thing: to be and always be. The standard assumption is that science and all other disciplines that seek knowledge should aim to do so progressively. Philosophy should play and continue to play the supervisory role to bring this to fruition. Should this be true, then philosophy should not avoid being prescriptive. Infact, I don't even think that philosophy can avoid being prescriptive, especially when examining and analysing statements of fact from other disciplines.

 

[Les Sleeth]

But a 'settled state' tends to have always been the most desirable one. Why float aimlessly? Settled state has many names. Some call it perfection and some call it whatever they like, yet all these names aim at one thing: to be and always be. The standard assumption is that science and all other disciplines that seek knowledge should aim to do so progressively. Philosophy should play and continue to play the supervisory role to bring this to fruition. Should this be true, then philosophy should not avoid being prescriptive. Infact, I don't even think that philosophy can avoid being prescriptive, especially when examining and analysing statements of fact from other disciplines.

Well, I wasn't recommending aimlessness, I talking about openness. Regarding a "settled state," I assumed we were talking about the learning condition of one's consciousness and not, say, things like one's living conditions or making a decision about something that needs to be done, etc. Of course then one needs to decide things to get anything practical accomplished.

So if it is the learning/developmental condition of one's consciousness we are talking about, look at the adults you know, and how many do you see still open to learning any and everything possible to learn? Most I know have "settled" all sorts of issues in their own minds which really should be left open for new information they might not know about. Decided, opinionated, conditioned . . . that is the state of the average human mind I encounter.

And "perfection" in terms of philosophy, now that seems quite the illusion. There is becoming; but what is perfection other than the belief "I've got it all figured out so now I can stop learning"? Perfect to me is the consciousness perfectly willing to learn.

That's the ideal philosophic attitude IMO -- the openness and willingness to never stop learning, and the courage to learn anything no matter how threatening it seems to one's current belief system. I can't see how that kind of attitude comes from those intent on settling everything. With an "infinite learning" approach, things which get settled that way have naturally settled themselves! One doesn't need to interfere with the process and impose one's need for everything to be neatly in place. And then if new information comes my way that affects something's settled-ness, okay then! Who cares, it is what it is.

Finally, I don't understand why you say "philosophy should. . ." Each person runs his own life, and so decides what he will do to develop his consciousness. Sure we can read what others have discovered, but people have to determine their own philosophy. So I don't see how "philosophy should play the supervisory role," as you suggest. Who the heck is going to run that program?

 

[Philocrat]

Well, I wasn't recommending aimlessness, I talking about openness. Regarding a "settled state," I assumed we were talking about the learning condition of one's consciousness and not, say, things like one's living conditions or making a decision about something that needs to be done, etc. Of course then one needs to decide things to get anything practical accomplished.

So if it is the learning/developmental condition of one's consciousness we are talking about, look at the adults you know, and how many do you see still open to learning any and everything possible to learn? Most I know have "settled" all sorts of issues in their own minds which really should be left open for new information they might not know about. Decided, opinionated, conditioned . . . that is the state of the average human mind I encounter.

And "perfection" in terms of philosophy, now that seems quite the illusion. There is becoming; but what is perfection other than the belief "I've got it all figured out so now I can stop learning"? Perfect to me is the consciousness perfectly willing to learn.

That's the ideal philosophic attitude IMO -- the openness and willingness to never stop learning, and the courage to learn anything no matter how threatening it seems to one's current belief system. I can't see how that kind of attitude comes from those intent on settling everything. With an "infinite learning" approach, things which get settled that way have naturally settled themselves! One doesn't need to interfere with the process and impose one's need for everything to be neatly in place. And then if new information comes my way that affects something's settled-ness, okay then! Who cares, it is what it is.

Finally, I don't understand why you say "philosophy should. . ." Each person runs his own life, and so decides what he will do to develop his consciousness. Sure we can read what others have discovered, but people have to determine their own philosophy. So I don't see how "philosophy should play the supervisory role," as you suggest. Who the heck is going to run that program?

Well, what you are describing here is what I habitually call "FALSELY CONSTITUTED SENSE OF NORMALITY". I think I have used this term to illustrate similar poits in many places on this physics forum and elsewhere on the internet. This is the problem. This naive overdependence on 'FIXED POINTS' 'COMFORT ZONES' and the 'SETTLED STATES' that we talked about above is precisely the point. Worst still, this amounts to an abuse of logic when they loosely use the term 'PERFECTION' to imply 'AVERAGE' or 'MODERATE' state of the given.

Anyawy, when I use the term 'SETTLED STATE' or 'PERFECTION', I always use this to imply the final or end state of the given. In the context of life forms, such as the human life form, I always use this to imply a progressively dervived final form in which the life form conernced subsequently survives physical destruction along with whatever is left of its final physical properties. With all the debates that are going on in physics, philosophy and every other related discipline, this in my opinion, is the only benchmark or a warrant for anyone laying claims to these terms. That is, perfection is not something that we have at the moment...rather, it is something that must be progressivelly derived at. It is a possibility that lies in wait in the future. I know many people are very sceptical about this possibility, but for me I always remain optimistic aboit it. It must be possible, otherwise life itself would be a worthless venture.

PROBLEM: We have created a situation whereby ordinary members of the world societies (those that you said are unwilling to make an effort to continue to learn) are increasingly depending on science to spin the magic wand to rescue the human race not only from a possible senselsess CIRCULARISM, but also from a possible TOTAL EXTINCTION of the human race. The question is: can science under this new development afford to think and act regressively? Even if life as a whole in the end turns out to be a pointless or hopeless venture, should not science contunue to lead the way and be optimistic?

 

[nightlight]

How true is the claim that everything in the whole universe can be explained by Physics and Physics alone? How realistic is this claim? Does our ability to mathematically describe physical things in spacetime give us sufficient grounds to admit or hold this claim? Or is there more to physical reality than a mere ability to matheamtically describe things?

Physical laws capture only a tiny fraction of the lawfullness/pattern of reality. The stuff physics doesn't say or know anything about is called "boundary and initial conditions" i.e. the external (outside of the physical laws) data that has to be put in by hand into the equations to make concrete predictions. In the hiearchy of natural sciences, each higher level science establishes its domain by identifying further patterns in the "initial & boundary conditions" (the silent part) of the lower level (more fundamental) discipline.

 

[saviourmachine]

Perfectness

Anyawy, when I use the term 'SETTLED STATE' or 'PERFECTION', I always use this to imply the final or end state of the given. In the context of life forms, such as the human life form, I always use this to imply a progressively dervived final form in which the life form conernced subsequently survives physical destruction along with whatever is left of its final physical properties.

The quest to perfection
So, do you see eternal existence of the human specie - evolved unto Ubermensch - as perfect? What is so nice about this 'perfection' idea? I agree with Les Sleeth, that the quest itself is worthwhile. 'Practicalists' think that philosophy is valuable when it has consequences in our physical human world. But, it's also possible to enjoy philosophy because of its aesthetic value. Philosophy systems are huge cathedrals of human innovativeness, beautiful like art. Useful? Maybe.

That is, perfection is not something that we have at the moment...rather, it is something that must be progressivelly derived at. ... It must be possible, otherwise life itself would be a worthless venture.

Life is worthwhile for the living
Life is also inherently worthwhile. Who/what would have advantage out of the existence of life? If the human specie doesn't enjoy life itself, it's on the wrong way (IMHO). People that aren't willing to change their minds aren't the ones that build mental cathedrals, but maybe they are even better in enjoying life itself.

 

[dekoi]

The universe is complex beyond our comprehension. Beyond any human's comprehension. We can not use the same principle to explain the universe. Just as we could live a life solely on one certain, specific principle. We need a combination of methods. One can not explain life using only the scientific method; nor only theology, or only philosophy. It is a combination of these which demonstrates the complex nature of the universe. Physics (or more generally, 'science',) is a simple tool, used to describe simple situations. It is productive. In fact, the most productive of anything known to humans. Yet philosophy allows us to earn knowledge beyond the scientific knowledge. We become aware of not only our external, physical surrounding and of specific things, but of our general meaning.

The unimportant questions are answered by science. Science can not answer the most important questions because its method does not allow it. Science is pure physical. Philosophy answers the questions which scence fails to answers in a valid, clear, definite way. What philosophy does not answer, theology answers. Each of these: science, philosophy, and theology, has its own way of answering questions. Its own 'method' if you will. You would not, for example, ask a physician to fix your car, because it is not his nature. You would ask a mechanic instead. Similarly, you would not ask a mechanical to perscribe you medicine. It is in no way, related to his method of work. Science is not sufficient enough for living a good life, and creating a good society. While humanity progresses, it realizes the questions which philosophy can answer, and those which science can. And when that is realized, the question will be sufficiently answered by a specific method. Science investigates. Philosophy does not. Philosophy goes beyond the senses. Science is trapped inside the senses and human experience. Science can only investigate the phenomenal world. Everything beyond, is in fact, beyond its comprehension.

Science is a means of producing. Philosophy does not produce anything at all. But knowledge is not only science. There is another use of knowledge. That use is philosphy. This philosophical knowledge directs us. Directs us towards the good; towards our meaning.

We should not look at philosophy as a shadow of physics or science. Philosophy is not the means of answering questions which science, in time, will answer anyway. We must come to realize they are two completely distinct methods of human intelligence. We do not philosophize and then use science to explain our philosophy. Science only attempts to answer what philosophy states. Similarly, philosophy sometimes attempts to answer what science can. "There is no dialogue between them".

 

[dekoi]

Science is believed to be a means to give reason for once unexplainable phenomenon. It promises validity and preciseness. Some even state that science is an omnipotent method, which lives in the foreground of knowledge. It is beyond philosophy, as philosophy only lives in its unnoticed shadow, theorizing what science promises to eventually prove. The arisen conflict is not the dispute of science as a means of knowledge, but its claim to be an omnipotent source of this knowledge. Perhaps, it is the origin of scientific knowledge, but certainly not knowledge altogether. Since scientific knowledge only proves the most naïve and minor questions – which might at that certain moment, seem like enormously important ones --- while philosophy is a completely distinct method; a method which explains what science cannot.

The importance of philosophy should not be ignored. It is of course, greatly ignored in our civilization. Though, the most previous statement is ignored as well. It is difficult to communicate such messages to such narrow minded humans – who have devoted their entire life to one methodology of knowledge. These “automata” have been programmed by everything ranging from their education system to their media’s commandments. Once children who believe in epistemology as a synonym for scientific explanation, now are completely independent adults, who adapt to this perverse notion of complete scientific knowledge.

The universe is complex beyond our comprehension. The most intelligent of our civilization have been stuck in dazed state, where everything seems to be designed for something else in this infinite universe-puzzle, yet simultaneously, nothing seems to be related to anything else. The world appears strangely interconnected and disconnected at the same instant; scientific knowledge creates this perception. These people have failed to realize what is already in our nature. They have not understood, and therefore appreciated, human’s quest and hunger for knowledge; and not only scientific, but universal knowledge. Intellect which could explain the reason for Mars’s atmosphere, just as well as it could give meaning to our lives. Scientific, as well philosophical and theological knowledge is what we have been gifted with in our own human nature.

We can not use the same principle to explain the universe. Just as we could not live a life solely on one certain, specific principle. We need a combination of methods. One can not explain life using only the scientific method; nor only theology, or only philosophy. It is a combination of these which demonstrates the complex nature of the universe. Physics (or more generally, 'science',) is a simple tool, used to describe simple situations. It is productive – in fact, the most productive of anything known to humans. Yet philosophy allows us to produce knowledge beyond the scientific. We become aware of not only our external, physical surrounding and of specific occurrences and objects, but of our general meaning. The unimportant questions are answered by science. Science can not answer the most important questions because its method does not allow it. Science is pure physicality. Philosophy answers the questions which science fails to answers in a valid, clear, definite way. What philosophy does not answer, theology does. Each of these: science, philosophy, and theology, has its own way of answering questions. Its own 'method' if you will. You would not, for example, ask a physician to fix your car, because it is not his field of knowledge. You would ask a mechanic instead. Similarly, you would not ask a mechanic to prescribe you medicine. It is in no way, related to his method of work. Science is not sufficient enough for living a good life, and creating a good society. While humanity progresses, it realizes the questions which philosophy can answer, and those which science can. When that is realized, the question will be sufficiently answered by a specific method. Science investigates. Philosophy does not. Science is trapped inside the senses and human experience. Philosophy goes beyond the senses, and travels into the realms of reason and profound thought. Science can only investigate the phenomenal world. Everything beyond, is in fact, beyond its comprehension.

We should not look at philosophy as a shadow of physics or science. Philosophy is not the means of answering questions which science, in time, will answer anyway. We must come to realize they are two completely distinct methods of human intelligence. We do not philosophize and then use science to explain our philosophy. Science only attempts to answer what philosophy states. Similarly, philosophy sometimes attempts to answer what science can. "There is no dialogue between them".

Science is a means of producing. Philosophy does not produce anything at all. But knowledge is not only science. There is another use of knowledge. That use is philosophy. This philosophical knowledge directs us – directs us towards the good; towards our meaning. “The utility of science is production, and the utility of philosophy is direction.” Consequently, religion gives us the grace and faith to follow the directions with.

 

[Philocrat]

Physical laws capture only a tiny fraction of the lawfullness/pattern of reality. The stuff physics doesn't say or know anything about is called "boundary and initial conditions" i.e. the external (outside of the physical laws) data that has to be put in by hand into the equations to make concrete predictions. In the hiearchy of natural sciences, each higher level science establishes its domain by identifying further patterns in the "initial & boundary conditions" (the silent part) of the lower level (more fundamental) discipline.

THE PROBLEM OF DEFINING THE PHYSICAL

Nightlife, welcome to the debate! Well, this is the nightmare that we have been battling with for the last 30 pages. The prolific and forceful arguments and counter arguments of the participants have resulted in a notorious puzzle or dilemma:

1) If there is something over and above the physical as it is being persistently suggested, should physics or science in general be revised and extended to accommodate and account for the non-physical remainder, if any?

2) Alternatively, should a separate and totally independent discipline be created to explain the non-physical remainder?

3) Or should we just retire to the physicalist position and claim that whatever remains is physical?

Well, if you read all the postings in this thread carefully, you should notice how people systematically but very cleverly avoid these three points. Personally, I think that we should come to some sort of agreement on these three points.

For me, option (1) seems to be labouring under over-definition: physics or science in general is over-defined. In the process, we unconsciously ignore the need to make the definition flexible enough to accommodate our own natural visual limitations. We define science beyond the natural limitations of the human visual faculties.

Option (2) on the other hand seems to be somewhat ruled out due to the fact that many other disciplines that attempt to explain the mysterious remainder already exist, except that elitism does not permit us to respect them. We tend to automatically snub and ignore all these 'Quango Disciplines'. We don't even look at them, let alone the possibility of adopting one of them as a potential explanatory device.

Finally, option (3) is by far the most problamtic, not because the underslying thesis of it is very wrong, but mainly because of false assumptions from passive presuppositions that are not logically and quantitatively ruled out. This problem is rooted in the fundamental questions that I have repeatedly asked on this physics forum, and which everyone seems to be sly about and systematically avoid facing head on:

(a) Does invisibility or unobservability of a thing make it non-Physical?

(b) Does invisibility or unobservability of a thing make it non-existent?

(c) Does invisibility or unobservability of an over-speeding moving object make it non-Physical?

(d) Does invisibility or unobservability of an over-speeding moving object make it non-existent?


THE PROBLEM OF REDUCTIONISM

On this, it is not clear as to the followings:

1) Is interdisciplinary reductionism possible at all, given all the claims already made on this. Should we, for example, start developing clear logical and quantitative notations for this?

2) The Reduction of every other discipline into physics as forcefully claimed in physics, which is what this thread is attempting to discover.

My own argument is that since there is still an insistance on the notion of the mysterious remainder, this is now the time for us to start looking at the possibility of (1) and (2). We need to start looking at how they are possible, given what is claimed in physics and elsewherwe.

 

[Philocrat]

The quest to perfection
So, do you see eternal existence of the human specie - evolved unto Ubermensch - as perfect?

Only if the term 'Ubermensch' is by definition equivalent to what my notion of perfection implies. If it is, then it is inevitable that we ought to evolve to it, otherwise life as a whole would be a worthless venture.

Life is worthwhile for the living
Life is also inherently worthwhile. Who/what would have advantage out of the existence of life? If the human specie doesn't enjoy life itself, it's on the wrong way (IMHO). People that aren't willing to change their minds aren't the ones that build mental cathedrals, but maybe they are even better in enjoying life itself.

Pleasure and pleasure alone is what life is all about, but the stupid structures that we have naively or unconsciously created are, admittedly, currently preventing this from happening. We have created complex but very problematic structures that would take generations of wars to disentangle, unless intellectuals of all disciplines outfox these moronic structures on the surface by fighting their own intellectual wars at the background and turning up with faster and ever faster surprises. Let these weird creatures who created these nightmares at the naive surface level wake up one day, and the very world they thought they once knew has changed, and changed for permanent good, under their own feet! We must, and should, physically progress to a state of permanent pleasure!

 

[Philocrat]

Science is believed to be a means to give reason for once unexplainable phenomenon. It promises validity and preciseness. Some even state that science is an omnipotent method, which lives in the foreground of knowledge. It is beyond philosophy, as philosophy only lives in its unnoticed shadow, theorizing what science promises to eventually prove. The arisen conflict is not the dispute of science as a means of knowledge, but its claim to be an omnipotent source of this knowledge. Perhaps, it is the origin of scientific knowledge, but certainly not knowledge altogether. Since scientific knowledge only proves the most naïve and minor questions – which might at that certain moment, seem like enormously important ones --- while philosophy is a completely distinct method; a method which explains what science cannot.

The importance of philosophy should not be ignored. It is of course, greatly ignored in our civilization. Though, the most previous statement is ignored as well. It is difficult to communicate such messages to such narrow minded humans – who have devoted their entire life to one methodology of knowledge. These “automata” have been programmed by everything ranging from their education system to their media’s commandments. Once children who believe in epistemology as a synonym for scientific explanation, now are completely independent adults, who adapt to this perverse notion of complete scientific knowledge.

The universe is complex beyond our comprehension. The most intelligent of our civilization have been stuck in dazed state, where everything seems to be designed for something else in this infinite universe-puzzle, yet simultaneously, nothing seems to be related to anything else. The world appears strangely interconnected and disconnected at the same instant; scientific knowledge creates this perception. These people have failed to realize what is already in our nature. They have not understood, and therefore appreciated, human’s quest and hunger for knowledge; and not only scientific, but universal knowledge. Intellect which could explain the reason for Mars’s atmosphere, just as well as it could give meaning to our lives. Scientific, as well philosophical and theological knowledge is what we have been gifted with in our own human nature.

We can not use the same principle to explain the universe. Just as we could not live a life solely on one certain, specific principle. We need a combination of methods. One can not explain life using only the scientific method; nor only theology, or only philosophy. It is a combination of these which demonstrates the complex nature of the universe. Physics (or more generally, 'science',) is a simple tool, used to describe simple situations. It is productive – in fact, the most productive of anything known to humans. Yet philosophy allows us to produce knowledge beyond the scientific. We become aware of not only our external, physical surrounding and of specific occurrences and objects, but of our general meaning. The unimportant questions are answered by science. Science can not answer the most important questions because its method does not allow it. Science is pure physicality. Philosophy answers the questions which science fails to answers in a valid, clear, definite way. What philosophy does not answer, theology does. Each of these: science, philosophy, and theology, has its own way of answering questions. Its own 'method' if you will. You would not, for example, ask a physician to fix your car, because it is not his field of knowledge. You would ask a mechanic instead. Similarly, you would not ask a mechanic to prescribe you medicine. It is in no way, related to his method of work. Science is not sufficient enough for living a good life, and creating a good society. While humanity progresses, it realizes the questions which philosophy can answer, and those which science can. When that is realized, the question will be sufficiently answered by a specific method. Science investigates. Philosophy does not. Science is trapped inside the senses and human experience. Philosophy goes beyond the senses, and travels into the realms of reason and profound thought. Science can only investigate the phenomenal world. Everything beyond, is in fact, beyond its comprehension.

We should not look at philosophy as a shadow of physics or science. Philosophy is not the means of answering questions which science, in time, will answer anyway. We must come to realize they are two completely distinct methods of human intelligence. We do not philosophize and then use science to explain our philosophy. Science only attempts to answer what philosophy states. Similarly, philosophy sometimes attempts to answer what science can. "There is no dialogue between them".

Science is a means of producing. Philosophy does not produce anything at all. But knowledge is not only science. There is another use of knowledge. That use is philosophy. This philosophical knowledge directs us – directs us towards the good; towards our meaning. “The utility of science is production, and the utility of philosophy is direction.” Consequently, religion gives us the grace and faith to follow the directions with.

Any thesis that attempts to interpret and unify disciplines should be acknowledged and gracefully appreciated. When disciplines behave as if they can in actuality go solo, it does not do the overall human intellectual progress any good. Your thesis look unifying, and it seems as if you are indirectly suggesting that, for example, the intellectual war between the creationists and evolutionists is over. Do you?

Persaonally, I think, and I have always thought, that there is no line dividing religious facts from scientific facts, for one is quite rightly reducible to the other. The intellectual war between the evolutionists and the creationists seems to be pointless. Although, not everything that you outlined in your thesis that I agree entirely with, nevertheless that you made an attempt at all is a brave move and is very much inline with my own view.

 

[dekoi]

Thank you Philocrat.

there is no line dividing religious facts from scientific facts

So you reason religious knowledge is somehow connected to scientific knowledge? Well i would say they are connected because they both produce a source of intellect, and thus, they are both striving for a general truth; yet they both answer completely distinct answers. Thus, one can say they are both connected as well as disconnected in a particular way.

----

Philocrat, just out of curiosity, which option in the poll did you vote for?

 

[nightlight]

Philocrat: 1) If there is something over and above the physical as it is being persistently suggested, should physics or science in general be revised and extended to accommodate and account for the non-physical remainder, if any?

The laws of physics are a minuscule fraction of the regularity/pattern in the universe. The relation of physics to other disciplines is like the relation of letter frequencies of English alphabet to English literature. The alphabet and letter counts don't place practically any constraints on what can be written in English. Similarly, the laws of physics place no constraint on the initial and boundary conditions that yield laws of chemistry, biology, medicine, psychology, sociology, economy,...

In other words, if you take all the data which describe the lawfulness/patterns/regularities of the universe, the physics laws make only a small part of this data set. A physicists looking through a microsopic physics pinhole calls the rest of the data "boundary and initial conditions", the stuff outside of the physics. Only for relatively simple (such as atom) or in some way very regular (such as crystal lattice or ideal gas) systems he can specify either explicit B/I conditions (such as that wave functions vanish in infinity or that they satisfy periodicity conditions or some simple distribution, etc.) and produce specific predictions.

In the alphabet analogy one could compare this kind of data to counting the frequencies of the letters -- the frequencies, valid as they may be, are still a negligible part of the content and patterns of the overall output in the English language. The 99.999...9... percent of the data is outside of the frequency data.

2) Alternatively, should a separate and totally independent discipline be created to explain the non-physical remainder?

Physical laws are an extremely weak constraint on what can be or what is. Many disciplines already exist with their own laws. Someone claiming that laws of biology are part of the physics is like someone claiming that his letter frequency theory explains everything written in English, and to prove that, he takes some book and counts the letters and proclaims -- see, I predicted these frequences, so this book is a part of my letter frequency theory. What do you say to such one trick robot? Whatever you say, he'll start counting letters in your sentences to proclaim that your response is predicted by his theory within the sample size error, etc.

 

[Philocrat]

Thank you Philocrat.




So you reason religious knowledge is somehow connected to scientific knowledge? Well i would say they are connected because they both produce a source of intellect, and thus, they are both striving for a general truth; yet they both answer completely distinct answers. Thus, one can say they are both connected as well as disconnected in a particular way.

Yes, I have gone down on record for advocating this. In my philosophy, your God is safe and sound...so, go ahead and sleep well at night!

----

Philocrat, just out of curiosity, which option in the poll did you vote for?

Come on, be a good sport...guess!

 

[dekoi]

"By Multi-disciplinary efforts? "

Would be my guess. :)

 

[Philocrat]

Philocrat: 1) If there is something over and above the physical as it is being persistently suggested, should physics or science in general be revised and extended to accommodate and account for the non-physical remainder, if any?

The laws of physics are a minuscule fraction of the regularity/pattern in the universe. The relation of physics to other disciplines is like the relation of letter frequencies of English alphabet to English literature. The alphabet and letter counts don't place practically any constraints on what can be written in English. Similarly, the laws of physics place no constraint on the initial and boundary conditions that yield laws of chemistry, biology, medicine, psychology, sociology, economy,...

In other words, if you take all the data which describe the lawfulness/patterns/regularities of the universe, the physics laws make only a small part of this data set. A physicists looking through a microsopic physics pinhole calls the rest of the data "boundary and initial conditions", the stuff outside of the physics. Only for relatively simple (such as atom) or in some way very regular (such as crystal lattice or ideal gas) systems he can specify either explicit B/I conditions (such as that wave functions vanish in infinity or that they satisfy periodicity conditions or some simple distribution, etc.) and produce specific predictions.

In the alphabet analogy one could compare this kind of data to counting the frequencies of the letters -- the frequencies, valid as they may be, are still a negligible part of the content and patterns of the overall output in the English language. The 99.999...9... percent of the data is outside of the frequency data.

2) Alternatively, should a separate and totally independent discipline be created to explain the non-physical remainder?

Physical laws are an extremely weak constraint on what can be or what is. Many disciplines already exist with their own laws. Someone claiming that laws of biology are part of the physics is like someone claiming that his letter frequency theory explains everything written in English, and to prove that, he takes some book and counts the letters and proclaims -- see, I predicted these frequences, so this book is a part of my letter frequency theory. What do you say to such one trick robot? Whatever you say, he'll start counting letters in your sentences to proclaim that your response is predicted by his theory within the sample size error, etc.

Well, in every analysis, be it logical or quantitative or in plain language, I always distinguish between (1) INTERMEDIATE TRUTHS and (2) FINAL TRUTHS. Admittedly, people habitually mix up and confuse the two, and in some very mixed up cases naively treat intermediate truths (conveyed by intermediate transportational causes) as if they are untrue and therefore irrelevant. Yes, intermediate truths may be ephemeral in substance and in scope, yet they are still truths in their own right that must be equally acknowledged and analytically accommodated.

On the issue of Final truths, most of which I have personally observed to be contained in a distanced future, at least as far as the human reality is concerned, I am in the opinion that science and every other related disciplines start working towards achieving them. We cannot just continue to be pessimistic about them. They say that optimism and science don't mix. I do not think this is true. I agree with some of the things that you are saying, but my main concern is the overall attitude of science to explaining things and events that range over the human reality. The fundamental problem that I am rasing in my above posting to you is whether physics or science in general should continue avoiding the explanation of things and events that range beyond human observation or perception. Should it? And if reductionism of any form is possible, should we now start examining its viability? Or are you completely ruling this out?

 

[Philocrat]

"By Multi-disciplinary efforts? "

Would be my guess. :)

You've guessed well. Thanks.

 

[Nereid]

Welcome to this discussion dekoi!

Science is believed to be a means to give reason for once unexplainable phenomenon. It promises validity and preciseness.

AFAIK, this applies only to that which is objective and physical. Of course, in the past 50 and more years, the domain which is objective and physical has expanded enormously; with neuroscience, even a great deal of humans' - and other mammals' - subjective experiences are now better understood.

Some even state that science is an omnipotent method, which lives in the foreground of knowledge. It is beyond philosophy, as philosophy only lives in its unnoticed shadow, theorizing what science promises to eventually prove. The arisen conflict is not the dispute of science as a means of knowledge, but its claim to be an omnipotent source of this knowledge. Perhaps, it is the origin of scientific knowledge, but certainly not knowledge altogether. Since scientific knowledge only proves the most naïve and minor questions – which might at that certain moment, seem like enormously important ones --- while philosophy is a completely distinct method; a method which explains what science cannot.

There's a pretty fundamental misunderstanding of what we current see as the nature of science in this sentence! Can you point to any serious student of science, or philosophy, who would claim 'that science is an omnipotent method, which lives in the foreground of knowledge. It is beyond philosophy, as philosophy only lives in its unnoticed shadow, theorizing what science promises to eventually prove'? That seems like a very poor strawman.

The importance of philosophy should not be ignored. It is of course, greatly ignored in our civilization. Though, the most previous statement is ignored as well. It is difficult to communicate such messages to such narrow minded humans – who have devoted their entire life to one methodology of knowledge. These “automata” have been programmed by everything ranging from their education system to their media’s commandments. Once children who believe in epistemology as a synonym for scientific explanation, now are completely independent adults, who adapt to this perverse notion of complete scientific knowledge.

The universe is complex beyond our comprehension. The most intelligent of our civilization have been stuck in dazed state, where everything seems to be designed for something else in this infinite universe-puzzle, yet simultaneously, nothing seems to be related to anything else. The world appears strangely interconnected and disconnected at the same instant; scientific knowledge creates this perception. These people have failed to realize what is already in our nature.They have not understood, and therefore appreciated, human’s quest and hunger for knowledge; and not only scientific, but universal knowledge. Intellect which could explain the reason for Mars’s atmosphere, just as well as it could give meaning to our lives. Scientific, as well philosophical and theological knowledge is what we have been gifted with in our own human nature.

A great deal is becoming clearer about 'our nature'; the other day I even saw a review of a book called "The God Gene" (or something similar), in which the author (so the review said) describes and discusses some recent research which shows that the feeling of spirituality are inheritable, and that there is a gene for this!

We can not use the same principle to explain the universe. Just as we could not live a life solely on one certain, specific principle. We need a combination of methods. One can not explain life using only the scientific method; nor only theology, or only philosophy. It is a combination of these which demonstrates the complex nature of the universe.

My reading of the earlier pages in this thread is that there is a general consensus that, while there may be parallel or alternative frameworks, so far as that which can be seen and touched is concerned, only 'the hard problem of consciousness' and (maybe) abiogenesis appear to be beyond the reach of an extrapolated contemporary application of the scientific method. So far as the subjective is concerned, it seems to me that if romantic love becomes understandable as drug addiction (as it seems it might be), then there isn't much else for philosophy (etc) to play with than inter-relationships among subjective experiences (and the 'hard' problem of consciousness).

Physics (or more generally, 'science',) is a simple tool, used to describe simple situations. It is productive – in fact, the most productive of anything known to humans. Yet philosophy allows us to produce knowledge beyond the scientific. We become aware of not only our external, physical surrounding and of specific occurrences and objects, but of our general meaning. The unimportant questions are answered by science. Science can not answer the most important questions because its method does not allow it.

You've mentioned this several times; can we please have an example of 'the most important questions' which science cannot answer?

 

[dekoi]

There's a pretty fundamental misunderstanding of what we current see as the nature of science in this sentence! Can you point to any serious student of science, or philosophy, who would claim 'that science is an omnipotent method, which lives in the foreground of knowledge. It is beyond philosophy, as philosophy only lives in its unnoticed shadow, theorizing what science promises to eventually prove'? That seems like a very poor strawman.

I was not referring to the educated student. I was referring -- I'm sorry for not being completely clear -- to the general population, and therefore the majority. Wouldn't you agree the majority of nations such as the United States are secular humanists or even Cafeteria Christians who believe science can prove anything (as long as the sufficient time is supplied)?

A great deal is becoming clearer about 'our nature'; the other day I even saw a review of a book called "The God Gene" (or something similar), in which the author (so the review said) describes and discusses some recent research which shows that the feeling of spirituality are inheritable, and that there is a gene for this!

Who said anything about spirituality? Spirituality is what our secular society is greatly in admiration with. Spirituality, on the same level as sexuality. There is a different between this version of "spirituality" and true theism.

My reading of the earlier pages in this thread is that there is a general consensus that, while there may be parallel or alternative frameworks, so far as that which can be seen and touched is concerned, only 'the hard problem of consciousness' and (maybe) abiogenesis appear to be beyond the reach of an extrapolated contemporary application of the scientific method. So far as the subjective is concerned, it seems to me that if romantic love becomes understandable as drug addiction (as it seems it might be), then there isn't much else for philosophy (etc) to play with than inter-relationships among subjective experiences (and the 'hard' problem of consciousness).

What makes you reason philosophy only deals with these metaphysical factors? Philosophy (quite simply put, and of course not the only part of the definition) is asking the questions which are greatly ignored in contemporary human civilization. To philosophize is to ask questions which science can not have an answer to. Surely, consciousness, abiogenesis , and love are not the only things we can philosophize about.

Apart from that, how could you possibly think of "love" as a possible version of a drug addiction. Have you confused Lust with Love? Do you not know what Love truly is?

(no arrogance intended )

You've mentioned this several times; can we please have an example of 'the most important questions' which science cannot answer?

I will reprhase my previous statement.
Philosophy can open one’s eyes to their existence as well as to human existence in general. It could give answers to the most profound of questions: What is Life?, What/Who is God?, Does God exist?, Does morality exist?, Do humans have a conscience, or merely an instinct? Contrary to philosophy, the unimportant questions are answered by science; and not to say these kinds of questions are generally unimportant, but they are much less vital to humanity than the philosophical breed.



Thanks for the welcoming Nereid.

 

[Nereid]

I was not referring to the educated student. I was referring -- I'm sorry for not being completely clear -- to the general population, and therefore the majority. Wouldn't you agree the majority of nations such as the United States are secular humanists or even Cafeteria Christians who believe science can prove anything (as long as the sufficient time is supplied)?

Fortunately, or otherwise, this is Physics Forums, and we try to take our science (and philosophy) a lot more seriously.

Personally, I'd like to see a section in PF devoted to discussion of science education, popular misconceptions, etc. Maybe I'll make a suggestion or three.

Who said anything about spirituality? Spirituality is what our secular society is greatly in admiration with. Spirituality, on the same level as sexuality. There is a different between this version of "spirituality" and true theism.

I was merely giving an example of some of the interesting results being reported, for recent studies into the neurophysiological and genetic bases of aspects of the human experience that were, at one time, thought to be well beyond the domain of science.

What makes you reason philosophy only deals with these metaphysical factors? Philosophy (quite simply put, and of course not the only part of the definition) is asking the questions which are greatly ignored in contemporary human civilization. To philosophize is to ask questions which science can not have an answer to. Surely, consciousness, abiogenesis , and love are not the only things we can philosophize about.

I'll come back to this later.

Apart from that, how could you possibly think of "love" as a possible version of a drug addiction. Have you confused Lust with Love? Do you not know what Love truly is?

Googling on 'romantic love brain chemistry' and many links refer to a recent book by Helen Fisher "http://www.bookideas.com/reviews/index.cfm?fuseaction=displayReview&id=1974 is the abstract of a study into "the neural correlates of maternal and romantic love"; sure it's early days - give it another 20 years or so for solid results to crystalise - but it does seem that chemistry can account for much observable phenomena ("drug addiction" comes into play in that the bond between two people in love is, crudely, an addiction to each other, mediated by chemicals, utilising the same or similar brain processes that 'cause' cocaine or alcohol addiction).

I will reprhase my previous statement.
Philosophy can open one’s eyes to their existence as well as to human existence in general. It could give answers to the most profound of questions: What is Life?, What/Who is God?, Does God exist?, Does morality exist?, Do humans have a conscience, or merely an instinct? Contrary to philosophy, the unimportant questions are answered by science; and not to say these kinds of questions are generally unimportant, but they are much less vital to humanity than the philosophical breed.

So I can surely find a dozen people who will truthfully say (and I can objectively test their truthfullness) that they feel these questions are *not* the most profound, that the questions which 'science can answer' are much more profound, that to them their health and physical comfort - the result of 'science' - are far more 'vital' than whether or not there is a god (or 20 million gods).

Does our discussion then turn on the weight of the self-declared opinions of a group of individuals of the mammal Homo sap.? What is the framework within which our friend, the lady from Venus (this is a PC world; the Man from Mars has been banished as being too warlike ), can assess the merits of the ardent words from these individuals (or groups)? How could our lady from Venus conclude anything other than that there's only science, the 'hard problem of consciousness' and intricate relationships among subjective experiences?