Is Science Futile? | Unlocking Nature's Mysteries

[Upisoft]

It seems that you are failing to understand my logical argument. I have no desire to destroy you, when did I say that? I was simply drawing an analogy whereby your argument should be applied to another situation if, you believe it to be true, forcing you to accept either both your own argument and the highlighted situation or to decline your original argument. It's a common technique in arguments...

You actually expressed proposal that I do the dirty job myself. Anyway your arguing technique is not working. You assumed that my life is "waste of time" and then proposed that I end this "waste of time", thinking there is a difference between both. But ultimately at the end, there is no difference, therefore doing one or another is equally "wasteful".

Well, I suppose you can just say nothing matters, everything is futile, but I feel that you then need to define what you mean by something "mattering".

Something matters if there is a difference at its end. And since we are talking about the science, I say it doesn't matter.

If you are saying that everything is futile because we will all eventually be destroyed, you need to prove that it is inescapable that we will definitely eventually be destroyed.

I cannot prove that everything will be destroyed. And you cannot prove that it will continue ad infinitum. It is just observation that life depends on free energy and that amount of free energy is going more or less in one direction.

 

[Jamma]

You actually expressed proposal that I do the dirty job myself. Anyway your arguing technique is not working. You assumed that my life is "waste of time" and then proposed that I end this "waste of time", thinking there is a difference between both. But ultimately at the end, there is no difference, therefore doing one or another is equally "wasteful".


Something matters if there is a difference at its end. And since we are talking about the science, I say it doesn't matter.


I cannot prove that everything will be destroyed. And you cannot prove that it will continue ad infinitum. It is just observation that life depends on free energy and that amount of free energy is going more or less in one direction.

Right, so this free energy thing, and everything you are basing your argument on is BASED upon scientific research; you wouldn't even be able to make such arguments without science. Therefore, it is possible that from more understanding of science your arguments may be changed too; i.e. if we do figure out that it will be possible to exist forever. You can't say that the thing you are basing your arguments on doesn't matter because you are admitting to ignoring the thing which you are basing your arguments on.

You say that something matters if there is a difference at it's end and you just admitted also to the fact that you can't prove that we won't all be destroyed. So you are admitting that it is possible that science will make a difference and therefore also admitting that science does matter.

QED

And it is irrelevant that I can't prove that everything won't end, because there is the possibility that it won't which validates my position. And there are some people who would still say that things matter even if everything will end; it's just that this position is harder to defend.

 

[Upisoft]

Right, so this free energy thing, and everything you are basing your argument on is BASED upon scientific research; you wouldn't even be able to make such arguments without science.

O - observation,
S - science,
M - my position.

It is O->M, O->S. You wrongly assumed it is O->S, S->M.

 

[Jamma]

What do them arrows mean? You say O->S which I assume means that science is based on observation, so by extension the first diagram shows that your position is based upon observation. And what aids observation the most and our ability to understand it? Science of course! Why should your argument based upon YOUR observations be taken without greater understanding of observations i.e. the pursuit of science.

You say that "It is just observation that life depends on free energy and that amount of free energy is going more or less in one direction. " but that is most certainly not a trivial observation, and has a LOT of science behind it.

 

[Upisoft]

You say that "It is just observation that life depends on free energy and that amount of free energy is going more or less in one direction. " but that is most certainly not a trivial observation, and has a LOT of science behind it.

The science is a tool that helps me to express my ideas in more compact and understandable form. It is useful for me. I don't deny its usefulness in context of "now". But as any tool its usefulness depends on the existence of the user.

Your answer to the problem is in the unknown(that we don't know what may happen in the future), I'd say you hope for a miracle.

People just need something that explains their lives. Something external to them. Something that shapes the Universe and gives meaning to everything in it. They call it God, unknown future, whatever. They forget that most simple explanation is most probably the correct one.

"There is no meaning" is simpler than "There is meaning, because we don't know what will happen in the future".

 

[Jamma]

I wouldn't say that it is hoping for a miracle. I'm sure that thousands of years ago, people would have considered it a miracle that we would be flying around in aeroplanes and be able to almost instantly send information to each other.

It's not too much of a leap to think that there is a possibility that one day we will be so advanced that we will find a way to ensure our continued existence. One could argue us having got so far scientifically still exists in some context when the universe has gone, although this is a bit of a weak point.

The topic is called "Isn't science futile?" and by the everyday usage of the term futile, it's pretty obvious that it isn't.

 

[Upisoft]

I wouldn't say that it is hoping for a miracle. I'm sure that thousands of years ago, people would have considered it a miracle that we would be flying around in aeroplanes and be able to almost instantly send information to each other.

This is quite different. In this example there are two types of observers. The ancient people who think that the airplane is a miracle and we who know that it isn't.

But when you talk about endless power I see only one type of observers. These who imagine something now considered impossible (a miracle). It is even not a real observation, it is merely an imagination.

It's not too much of a leap to think that there is a possibility that one day we will be so advanced that we will find a way to ensure our continued existence. One could argue us having got so far scientifically still exists in some context when the universe has gone, although this is a bit of a weak point.

The topic is called "Isn't science futile?" and by the everyday usage of the term futile, it's pretty obvious that it isn't.

I'm not discussing the everyday usage of the science. Anyway I'm not making that leap of faith you are suggesting. You see, more we know more boundaries we find. People believed that there is no speed limit until we found it. People believed there is no limit to the precision of the measurements, until we found there is. And you believe there is an energy source without boundaries...

 

[JDStupi]

I'm not up on all of the discussion, simply I wish to ask what we mean to say when we say does something "matter"? From what I have read, Upisoft stated what he considered his definition for the discussion of something "mattering" that is "X matters iff it makes a difference in the end" From this definition of "matter" the argument was made that "X matters iff it makes a difference in the end. Science does not make a difference in the end, therefore Science does not matter". This seems to be an ample definition, but for it to have any meaning, or to be true we have to analyze the term "difference" because now we are saying that X matters iff X stands in a certain relation r to y. Now this all seems like unneccessary complication, because "difference" is a common term, so anything that changes the state of affairs that would have been can be called a "difference". But, now what does it seems as though we come to? The concept of difference seems to rest inherently on underlying assumptions, because at this point we can make tautologies out of the definition, that is for any x we put in the statement will be true. If you believe that difference means changing something in the end, and your underlying assumptions are that of somebody who believes in strict determinism/fatalism and denies the existence of possibility, you have it where any x you put in would not make a difference and therefore nothing would matter. But, on the other hand, if you were to admit of possibility and by extension the reality of temporality, you would have to admit that if you put in any value for x the statement would be such that everything mattered, because everything that is done, will change the possible outcome of some future state. You could claim that you meant "make a difference on a large scale" thus taking us from a local view to a more global picture, but in this case what level would you zoom to? Clearly the implementation of Science has "made a difference" in individuals lives, and through technology it has made a difference to the Earth itself. If you zoom out further than the Earth and say "there it has not made a difference" then you are rgith, but by that definition little else has. If the assumption of determnisim/fatalism, then the only thing that could make a difference would be the initial state of the universe, and otherwise everything makes a difference.

 

[Upisoft]

I'm not up on all of the discussion, simply I wish to ask what we mean to say when we say does something "matter"? From what I have read, Upisoft stated what he considered his definition for the discussion of something "mattering" that is "X matters iff it makes a difference in the end" From this definition of "matter" the argument was made that "X matters iff it makes a difference in the end. Science does not make a difference in the end, therefore Science does not matter". This seems to be an ample definition, but for it to have any meaning, or to be true we have to analyze the term "difference" because now we are saying that X matters iff X stands in a certain relation r to y. Now this all seems like unneccessary complication, because "difference" is a common term, so anything that changes the state of affairs that would have been can be called a "difference". But, now what does it seems as though we come to? The concept of difference seems to rest inherently on underlying assumptions, because at this point we can make tautologies out of the definition, that is for any x we put in the statement will be true. If you believe that difference means changing something in the end, and your underlying assumptions are that of somebody who believes in strict determinism/fatalism and denies the existence of possibility, you have it where any x you put in would not make a difference and therefore nothing would matter. But, on the other hand, if you were to admit of possibility and by extension the reality of temporality, you would have to admit that if you put in any value for x the statement would be such that everything mattered, because everything that is done, will change the possible outcome of some future state. You could claim that you meant "make a difference on a large scale" thus taking us from a local view to a more global picture, but in this case what level would you zoom to? Clearly the implementation of Science has "made a difference" in individuals lives, and through technology it has made a difference to the Earth itself. If you zoom out further than the Earth and say "there it has not made a difference" then you are rgith, but by that definition little else has. If the assumption of determnisim/fatalism, then the only thing that could make a difference would be the initial state of the universe, and otherwise everything makes a difference.

The problem with expressing my ideas is based on the fact that people developed their languages to express mostly temporal phenomena from the everyday point of view. So, when I move my view point from now to the distant future, most of the language becomes useless and I have to redefine the meaning of the words on the fly.

Of course, if you look at the universe as a whole everything makes difference. You can't make single change in an atom without affecting something else. The effect of your changes will travel with the speed of light at max. But in everyday usage of "does it matter?" we are rarely interested of effects our actions can cause to the distant galaxies or if the distant galaxies cause something to us. We filter the information in different ways, usually defined by the context. Thus there is no fixed meaning of that phrase, it is rather flexible.

So, if we ask the question, "does the science matter?" without context, we ask nothing. If the context is if it affects our lives now, then of course the answer is "yes".

I was exploring another context - the distant future when there will be no free energy available to support life. Also, the question is not if different evens due to different developments of science can cause different arrangement of matter in distant future. The obvious answer here is "yes", because everything causes effect on everything else with some finite speed of propagation.The context is if there will be something we care about now. Examples: We care about life, and there will be no life; we care about friendship, love, achievements, etc. But in that context there will be no one to care about things. All what will be there(filtered from details we don't care about) is cold, dark, empty and lifeless universe.

Will science have some effect on that? Some people believe, putting their faith in something: God, unknown future, etc., that there will be difference. They escape this conclusion by creating fictional realms(heaven, hell, etc.) or fictional entities (unknown but existing advances in science, etc.). I'm not a believer, I choose the simpler answer as the correct one. From my point of view, believing in fictional entities is all the same, no matter how plausible some of them may look like.

 

[arkajad]

All what will be there(filtered from details we don't care about) is cold, dark, empty and lifeless universe.

That's an assumption, a belief of yours, no matter how plausible it may look like to you.

 

[Upisoft]

That's an assumption, a belief of yours, no matter how plausible it may look like to you.

No, it is conclusion based on observation. The belief is that we can observe meaningful data.

Of course the science shares the same belief, and if it is incorrect, then the science is futile. That logical branch is just not interesting to investigate further.

 

[arkajad]

No, it is conclusion based on observation.

But is your conclusion. It does not follow by logic, it follows by your belief. Other people, with other belief systems, will get different conclusions from the same set of data. Moreover, you select the data set to suit your belief system. So, because you have your beliefs, do not be so harsh on people having different beliefs.

 

[Upisoft]

But is your conclusion. It does not follow by logic, it follows by your belief. Other people, with other belief systems, will get different conclusions from the same set of data. Moreover, you select the data set to suit your belief system. So, because you have your beliefs, do not be so harsh on people having different beliefs.

That's the first sensible statement I've read here. Usually others have repulsive need to refute my beliefs.
What do you believe?

 

[arkajad]

What do you believe?

I don't know. I do not want to believe. I want to know.

 

[Upisoft]

I don't know. I do not want to believe. I want to know.

So you believe in knowledge. Popular one

PS: Me too.

 

[JaredJames]

Without reading all of this thread.

As you keep pointing out, everything will eventually come to an end, so why do we do anything? What is the point of anything, at all? We should all just lay back and let ourselves die.

You can argue science is futile all you like, but on the grounds you are stating in this thread, that also makes everything else every life form on this planet does futile.

 

[Upisoft]

Without reading all of this thread.

As you keep pointing out, everything will eventually come to an end, so why do we do anything? What is the point of anything, at all? We should all just lay back and let ourselves die.

You can argue science is futile all you like, but on the grounds you are stating in this thread, that also makes everything else every life form on this planet does futile.

Isn't it obvious? You do what you do, because you look at the picture from different point of view(creating new context). You look at it form "now". Did you ever cared about an neanderthal that hit his thumb with first tool they created? I'm sure the Neanderthal cared about the unpleasant pain though... Every event has multiple points of view.

My point of view cares about what we should do as much as you cared about the Neanderthal. There is no point to choose any specific action and prefer it, as it ultimately does not matter.

If you understood what I'm trying to say, you'd know it is pointless to take any preference in our actions based on it.

 

[Jamma]

I know exactly what you are saying.

The point is, that you don't know that everything will come to an end, so you can't conclude that science doesn't matter. There are countless examples of many people coming to conclusions which later turned out to be completely wrong.

I accept that given current data, and your definition of "does X matter" that it is likely that science doesn't matter, but given that we are still very primitive and pretty much know nothing, we are in no position to make such claims about the end of the universe, so science does matter.

 

[Upisoft]

I know exactly what you are saying.

The point is, that you don't know that everything will come to an end, so you can't conclude that science doesn't matter. There are countless examples of many people coming to conclusions which later turned out to be completely wrong.

I accept that given current data, and your definition of "does X matter" that it is likely that science doesn't matter, but given that we are still very primitive and pretty much know nothing, we are in no position to make such claims about the end of the universe, so science does matter.

You are right, of course. Everyone can be wrong. Newton was wrong, Einstein made a correction. But you know if I go now to the GR thread and drop a post "Einstein could be wrong" and say that I base my conclusion on the fact that someone in the future may find another law that will correct him, then I'm sure the thread will be closed as being "overly speculative". Yet the fact that everyone could be wrong doesn't trouble science. It self corrects and goes on. So, if I'm wrong I'll self correct myself when the time comes.

 

[Jamma]

You are right, of course. Everyone can be wrong. Newton was wrong, Einstein made a correction. But you know if I go now to the GR thread and drop a post "Einstein could be wrong" and say that I base my conclusion on the fact that someone in the future may find another law that will correct him, then I'm sure the thread will be closed as being "overly speculative". Yet the fact that everyone could be wrong doesn't trouble science. It self corrects and goes on. So, if I'm wrong I'll self correct myself when the time comes.

It seems that you are being overly speculative in how much you think that we know at the present time. It seems overly speculative to me that we definitely won't one day have a very different picture of the universe to what we do now.

 

[Upisoft]

It seems that you are being overly speculative in how much you think that we know at the present time. It seems overly speculative to me that we definitely won't one day have a very different picture of the universe to what we do now.

It is as much 'overly speculative' as denying existence of the Invisible Pink Unicorn.