Posts Tagged ‘knowledge’

Boundaries of Knowledge: Natural, Supernatural, and Unnatural

June 14, 2025

Our finite view of a slice of a boundless universe

Every morning, the sun “rises.” It is foundational to all life on earth. It is not just a fundamental part of our daily experience, it defines our days and our lives. Yet it is so expected, so certain that we rarely give it a second thought. For at least as long as we have been Homo sapiens, this inexplicable, regular event used to be imbued with profound mystery and was attributed to divine forces or cosmic beings. The sun’s regular, predictable journey across the sky was a phenomenon where its causes could not be explained by the laws of nature of that time.

Then came Copernicus and Newton and later Einstein and we now claim to understand the Earth’s rotation and its orbit around the sun. The “rising” of the sun every day is just a trick of perspective. We can predict it with incredible precision. It is the common belief that the sun’s daily appearance is entirely “natural” and “fully explained” by the laws of nature revealed to us by the scientific method.

But this widely held belief is wrong and overlooks a deeper truth.

Our brains are finite, and our senses, while remarkable, are but a few of the many evolved on Earth. We perceive only a narrow band of the electromagnetic spectrum, hear only certain frequencies, and are blind to magnetic fields, sonar, or infrared vision that other creatures can detect. We have no idea of what senses we do not have. Wherever we look in time and space we see no bounds, we see no edge. This application of a finite cognition to a boundless universe is inherently limited. It means our true observations are always incomplete, partial, and imperfect perceptions. It is inevitable that there are things we know, things knowable which we do not know, and, most importantly, things we simply cannot know. (I have described the the tripartite classification of knowledge elsewhere: known, unknown but knowable, and unknowable)

This leads me to what I believe is a crucial skeleton on which to hang the flesh of reality:

  1. Everything observed or experienced is real and natural.
  2. Nothing unnatural is real and thus the unnatural can never be, or have been, observed.
  3. The supernatural (supra-natural) is that which is observed but cannot be explained by the known laws of nature. The inexplicability could be temporary or it could be permanent if the explanation lies in the region beyond human cognition.

My foundational premise is that anything truly observed exists within the fabric of our reality, and it is real and it is natural. Often people refer to the supernatural when they mean the unnatural but this is just being sloppy with language. The distinction is that the supernatural has to be first observed and then determined to be inexplicable based on the known laws of nature. The unnatural can never be observed and is always fiction (no matter how entertaining).

The enduring supernatural in knowledge (and science)

Let’s revisit the sun. While we can calculate the effects of gravity with breathtaking accuracy, we still haven’t a clue as to why gravity exists, or what it fundamentally is. We describe its behavior, but its intrinsic nature remains an enigma. The very concept of “gravity,” while allowing for precise calculations of its effects, is a placeholder for a phenomenon that we observe and measure, yet cannot explain. Therefore, gravity itself is a supernatural phenomenon.
This pattern repeats across the frontiers of modern science, showing how “scientific explanations” often only shift us to new supernatural things. The state of knowledge and knowledge seeking today reveals that the foundational assumptions and boundary conditions for all knowledge seeking – including the scientific method, reasoning, and logical discourse – are themselves supernatural.
The Stuff of All Matter and Quantum Waves: We describe particles and waves, their interactions, and the quantum fields from which they arise. Yet, what is the fundamental ‘stuff’ that constitutes a quantum field or a fundamental particle? Why these particular properties? Why does quantum mechanics work the way it does? This fundamental substratum of reality remains profoundly supernatural.
The Big Bang Singularity: As science traces the universe back to its very beginning, we arrive at the Big Bang singularity – a point where known physics breaks down. What happened before the Big Bang? What caused it? These questions extend beyond the reach of our current physical laws, pushing the Big Bang itself into the supernatural realm of observed phenomena that are currently inexplicable.
Black Holes: These extreme gravitational wells are predicted by Einstein’s relativity, yet their singularities represent another boundary where our laws break down. What is inside a black hole beyond our conceptual and physical ability to observe or calculate? The singularity at their heart, and indeed the event horizon’s fundamental nature, remains supernatural.
Dark Energy and Dark Matter: Constituting the vast majority of the universe’s mass and energy, these entities influence cosmic structure and expansion. We observe their gravitational effects, but their identity, composition, and underlying ‘why’ remain a profound mystery, pushing them firmly into the supernatural category of observed phenomena that resist explanation.
The Nature of Truth, Causality, Time, Space, Life, and Consciousness: These are not just scientific puzzles, but the very boundary conditions upon which all our inquiries are built. We observe and experience them directly, yet their ultimate nature and “why” remain fundamentally inexplicable, thus rendering them supernatural.

This constant shifting of explanations, where solving one mystery often reveals deeper, more fundamental ones that remain inexplicable, underscores my main thesis that as our knowledge progresses, it inevitably encounters phenomena that, while observed and real, may forever remain in the realm of the supernatural. Whenever a cosmologist or physicist invokes random events they are invoking – by definition – events without cause and such events lie outside the laws of nature. Truly random (causeless) events are always supernatural. The scientific method often uses placeholders (like “dark energy” or “Big Bang”) when it reaches these supernatural stops, in the hope that their inexplicability is merely temporary. But we can never know if an inexplicability is temporary or permanent. (When it is claimed that “we don’t know but we know it isn’t that”, sloppy language has extended to sloppy thinking).

The unobservable unnatural

In contrast to the natural and supernatural, the unnatural represents that which cannot be observed. It is the realm of fiction, of true impossibility based on the consistent rules of our observed reality. An example would be cows jumping over the moon. While we can imagine it, it fundamentally violates the known physical laws of gravitation and biology, making it unobservable in our natural world. Similarly, a true perpetual motion machine that creates energy from nothing would be unnatural because it fundamentally contradicts the laws of thermodynamics, not merely because it’s currently unexplained. Such things cannot exist or be observed. “Supernatural beings” is really sloppy language since they cannot be observed – ever – and what is meant is unnatural beings.

The enduring quest

Acknowledging these boundaries doesn’t mean we stop seeking. Quite the opposite. It fosters intellectual humility and refines our quest. We continue to unravel the complexities of the knowable natural world, pushing the frontiers of science. And in doing so, we gain a deeper appreciation for the profound supernatural mysteries that define the ultimate limits of our understanding – mysteries that, while observed and real, may forever remain beyond our full grasp. This continuous seeking is a dance between discovery and enduring enigma. It is the essence of the human condition. It lies at the core of the scientific method and of all knowledge seeking. It ensures that the universe will always hold more wonders than our finite minds can unravel, keeping our sense of awe forever alive.

Related:

The Great Mysteries: Known, Knowable, and Unknowable Foundations of Philosophy

Knowledge, Truth, and Reality: Attributes of Consciousness in an Anti-Realist Framework

Tags:, , , ,
Posted in Language, Philosophy | Comments Off on Boundaries of Knowledge: Natural, Supernatural, and Unnatural

Knowledge, Truth, and Reality: Attributes of Consciousness in an Anti-Realist Framework

April 22, 2025

This follows on from my earlier post about knowledge.

This essay argues that knowledge, truth, and reality are attributes of consciousness, requiring a purposeful, self-aware mind to transform raw data into meaning. Countering realist and Cartesian assumptions, this post adopts an anti-realist framework which emphasizes consciousness’s role, urging epistemic humility and responsible engagement with constructed realities.

Introduction

Consider our famous tree which falls in a forest. The trivial question is whether there is a sound when there is no one to hear? But let us ask instead what is experienced by an intelligent observer who just happens to be around. This question opens up the nature of knowledge, truth, and reality, revealing their dependence on a conscious mind. I argue that these are attributes of consciousness, created when a self-aware, purposeful mind defines and interprets phenomena. Existence—the brute fact of all things being—may stand alone, like air pressure vibrations in a forest, but reality, truth, and knowledge require an observer to define specific things, such as a tree’s fall. Realists claim the universe exists and is real intrinsically, conflating existence with reality, but this begs, “Known by who?”—exposing the need for a conscious knower. Knowledge arises only when consciousness contextualizes defined phenomena, truth appears as consciousness judges their certainty, and reality takes shape as meaning is constructed, all within the mind. The grey amorphous splodge of everything which is in the universe may encompass all existence, but it defines no things; only observers carve out realities. This anti-realist perspective rejects absolute truth and philosophical objectivity, emphasizing diverse perspectives—humans understanding the sun scientifically, crows sensing it instinctively—each defining distinct realities, limited by the unknowable. Through definitions, epistemic limits, and implications, this essay explores how consciousness shapes understanding. Knowledge abides only in a consciousness which has a need to define what is known. The tree-falling analogy anchors this, showing existence to be diffuse and undefined until a mind makes it real, urging us to see knowledge, truth, and reality as products of consciousness.

Definitions

What does it mean to know, to judge true, or to call something real? These terms hinge on a critical and crucial distinction between existence – the universe’s raw, undefined splodge – and the reality, knowledge, and truth, which can only be carved out of existence by a conscious mind.

  • Existence is the brute fact of all things being—particles, waves, space, vibrations, stars, trees, winds, crows—swirling amorphously as the universe’s grey background, unnamed, undefined and needing no observer.
  • Data are discrete slices of existence, like air pressure vibrations in a forest, raw and shapeless until a mind touches them.
  • Information emerges when senses and interpreting brains select and shape data into patterns, such as sound waves rippling through an ear.
  • Knowledge is born when a conscious mind defines these patterns, naming them with certainty: “A tree fell.”
  • Cognition—perception, memory, reasoning—builds the bridge from data to information.
  • Consciousness is cognition with self-awareness, the spark that defines things and weaves knowledge.
  • Purpose is the drive, whether deliberate study or survival’s instinct, pushing a mind to define and learn.
  • Truth is a judgment, a mind declaring a defined thing certain, like “a tree fell is true,” meaningless without someone to say it.
  • Objectivity is minds agreeing, as in science’s shared truths, not a reality beyond them—else, “Intrinsic to what?”
  • Reality is meaning carved from existence, a defined thing like a forest event, not a universal fact.

This anti-realist view clarifies how knowledge, truth, and reality can only spring from a mind which contemplates and tries to define the bits and pieces of existence’s diffuse mass. The brute fact of all that is, just is and does not need to name or identify its own bits and pieces or make judgements about them. Realists conflate existence with reality, but pressure vibrations in the air do not sing until a conscious observer judges them to be a sensation called sound.

The Limits of Knowing: Known, Knowable, and Unknowable

Picture the universe as a vast, amorphous, undefined sea of existence. What can we know from it? Knowledge splits into three realms: the known, the knowable, and the unknowable. The known holds what we’ve defined—gravity’s pull, a tree’s fall—crafted by observation. The knowable waits to be defined, like distant stars or hidden creatures, reachable with better tools or sharper minds. The unknowable is existence undefined—quantum flickers, the universe’s deep nature—forever beyond our grasp. This divide shows knowledge and truth need a mind to carve specific things from existence’s splodge. Realists proclaim a universe real in itself, but “Known by who?, Real to who?” Defining the sun reveals this: humans name it a star, blazing with fusion; crows sense a warm light, guiding flight. Each reality is partial, missing existence’s undefined depths, like quantum secrets. The unknowable allows no mind to be able to capture all, shattering realism’s dream of one true reality. Knowledge lives in what we define, shaped by consciousness, not floating in existence. A tree’s vibrations are just there until an observer calls them a sound or a fall, crafting a reality. This anti-realist lens, seeing reality as it is defined, not as a given, leads us to explore how consciousness transforms bits of existence into knowledge.

From Data to Knowledge: The Conscious Process

Consider again our tree, crashing in the forest. What does an intelligent observer experience? Vibrations ripple through the air—existence’s brute fact, undefined and silent. These are data, raw scraps of the universe’s meaningless, lonely splodge. The eye perceives nothing but an ear catches them, cognition spins them into information—sound waves with rhythm and pitch. Then consciousness, purposeful and self-aware, defines them: “A cracking sound”, “A tree fell.” This is knowledge, born when a mind carves a specific thing from existence. Realists insist the fall is real in itself, but that cannot be. “What is a tree?, What is air? Known by who?” Vibrations aren’t a tree’s fall until defined—else, “Intrinsic to what?” A human observer might name it a forest event, mapping its cause; a crow, hearing danger, defines it as a threat. Each reality springs from defining selected bits and pieces of existence, both enlightened and limited by senses and constrained by the unknowable, like the molecular dance triggered by the tree which fell. What the human selects of the data available and what the crow selects are different. Knowledge isn’t in the universe’s raw being but in a mind’s act of definition. Animals or AI might process information, but only a conscious mind, driven by purpose—curiosity or survival—defines knowledge as humans do. No book or computer ever contained knowledge. A crow’s instinct doesn’t name the fall; AI’s outputs don’t reflect knowledge. Only consciousness, shaping existence into defined things, creates meaning, setting the stage for judgments of truth value.

Knowledge and Truth: A Mind-Dependent Relationship

What makes a belief knowledge, and what makes it true? Observe that belief – no matter how enhanced (justified, true, etc.) – can never achieve a truth value of 1. That requires it no longer be a belief. Knowledge is a belief held with a subjective confidence, defined and justified, like “The sun rises” seen daily. Truth is the mind’s judgment that a defined thing aligns with reality—but reality itself is carved from existence by consciousness. To call “a tree fell” true, an observer hears vibrations (existence), defines them as sound, and judges the event’s certainty. Realists claim truth lives in the universe, saying “the sun is real” or “gravity is true.” But “sun” or “gravity” are defined things, needing a mind—“Intrinsic to what?” Consciousness can deal with partial truths and almost certainties. Claiming “existence is true” is a tautology; existence just is, undefined. Humans define the sun as a star, fusing atoms; crows, as a light, guiding paths. Both truths are real, yet partial, blind to existence’s undefined depths, like quantum waves. “Known by who?” Truth applies to things that a mind names, not existence’s splodge. Truth falters, too: geocentrism once reigned, toppled by heliocentrism’s evidence. This shows consciousness, purposeful and fluid, redefining truths as knowledge shifts. Anti-realism sees truth as subjective, sometimes shared through science’s agreed definitions, but never absolute. Existence’s undefined vastness limits all truths—no mind defines it all. Knowledge and truth, born from defining bits of existence, are consciousness’s craft, driven by purpose, as we’ll see next.

Purpose in the Generation of Knowledge

Why do we know? Purpose lights the spark. Whether chasing curiosity or surviving danger, purpose drives a mind to define existence’s grey splodge. Picture our tree’s fall: an observer, keen to understand, hears vibrations and defines them as “a tree fell,” forging knowledge and truth. Without purpose, existence stays undefined. Realists claim gravity’s pull is knowledge itself, but “Known by who?” Gravity is another  indistinguishable part of existence until a mind defines it as a force or as the curvature of spacetime. Saying “existence is real” is empty—existence doesn’t define things. Purpose shapes what we carve: humans define a forest to study its life; crows, a fall as danger to flee. Each knowledge, each reality, is a slice of existence, limited by the undefinable, like unseen molecules. A book holds data, but only a purposeful reader defines its words as knowledge. Crows sense light, but without human-like purpose, they don’t define it as a star. AI crunches numbers, lacking the self-aware drive to name things. Realist intrinsic reality crumbles—“Intrinsic to what?”—as existence needs a mind to become real. Purpose makes knowledge, truth, and reality conscious acts, defining the universe’s raw being, a theme echoed in how perspectives shape reality.

Perspectives on Reality: The Role of Perception

Is reality one, or many? It depends on the mind defining it. The sun burns in existence’s splodge, undefined. Humans, through science, give it a boundary, define it as a star, fusing hydrogen; crows, through instinct, see a light, guiding their flight. Each carves a reality—knowledge and truth—from existence, yet each misses the undefinable, like quantum flickers. Realists insist the sun is real in itself, but “Intrinsic to what?” The sun isn’t a “star” without a mind to first carve it out of existence and name it—“Known by who?” The sound of our tree’s fall is just air pressure vibrations until defined: by humans as a forest event, by crows as danger. These realities, though valid, are partial, shaped by perception’s lens and existence’s hidden depths. The universe holds the splodge of existence but defines no things; minds do that. Even science’s objectivity is minds agreeing on defined truths, not a truth beyond them. But a subjective untruth even if shared 8 billion times remains a subjective untruth. Realist claims of a real universe blur existence with reality, ignoring that things need defining. No perspective holds all—humans, crows, or others—because the undefinable bits of existence will always escape us. Some existence is unknowable. Reality is consciousness’s craft, a mosaic of defined things, not a universal slab. This anti-realist view, seeing reality as what we define, faces challenges we’ll tackle next.

Counterarguments: Where Does Knowledge Reside?

Could knowledge live outside a mind—in the universe, nature, books, or AI? Realists say yes, claiming gravity’s law is knowledge, real in itself. But gravity is existence’s hum, undefined until a mind calls it a force or spacetime—“Known by who?” Saying “existence is real” is a tautology, blurring brute fact with defined reality—“Intrinsic to what?” Descartes’ Cogito, ergo sum stumbles here, its loop (I exist, so I exist) assuming a self, like realism’s assumed reality, defining nothing. Trees grow, crows fly by light, but their “knowledge” is instinct, not defined belief. Crows sense the sun but don’t name it a star, lacking human purpose. Books store words, yet only a reader defines their meaning. AI processes data, programmed but not purposeful, outputting results, not knowledge. These claims mistake existence or information for knowledge, ignoring the mind’s role in defining things. Science’s truths, though shared, are minds defining existence, not existence defining itself. Our tree’s vibrations are existence’s pulse, undefined until an observer names them a sound or a fall. Realists conflate existence’s being with reality’s meaning, but only consciousness, purposefully carving things from the universe’s splodge, creates knowledge, truth, and reality, as we’ll reflect on next.

Implications and Reflections

What happens if knowledge, truth, and reality are consciousness’s creations? We must tread humbly. Truths shift—geocentrism gave way to heliocentrism—as minds redefine the bits and pieces of existence. Undefined existence, the unknowable, looms beyond, like quantum shadows, reminding us no truth is final. Realists’ intrinsic reality—“Intrinsic to what?”—ignores this, conflating existence’s splodge with defined things. Humans define ecosystems, crows dangers, each reality a fragment, urging care in the truths we craft. Descartes’ Cogito’s tautology, looping on existence, fades beside this view of reality as defined, not given. Anti-realism sparks curiosity, urging us to define the knowable while bowing to the undefinable. Science’s shared truths are precious, yet human, not universal. For non-specialists, this reveals knowledge as our act of naming existence—trees, stars, laws—not a cosmic gift. Philosophically, it dances with idealism and constructivism, spurning realism’s blend of existence and reality. Existence may hum unheard, but without a mind to define it, it is silent. This calls us to question, redefine, and own the realities we shape, as we’ll now conclude.

Conclusion

Our tree falls, vibrations pulsing in existence’s grey splodge. Is it real? Only if a mind defines it. Knowledge, truth, and reality are consciousness’s gifts, carved from the universe’s raw being. An observer names vibrations a forest event, crafting reality; crows sense danger, defining another. Realists call the universe real, blending existence with meaning—“Known by who?” Existence just is; things, however, need to be first imagined and then defined by a mind. Humans weave scientific truths, crows instinctual ones, each partial, constrained by undefinable existence. Purpose fuels this, setting conscious minds apart. Truths evolve—fallible, human—rejecting absolute reality. Saying “existence is real” or leaning on Descartes’ Cogito’s loop dodges the truth: only defined things are real or true. The universe holds existence, not things, until we name them. This anti-realist view demands the humility imposed by the unknowable—our truths are ours—and imposes responsibility, as defined realities shape our world. We can study and explore what we can define, and question what we cannot. Consciousness is our tool to extract meaning and comprehension from the grey cosmic background of existence and to assess the quality – truth, reality – of the knowledge we have created.

Tags:, , , , ,
Posted in Language, Philosophy | Comments Off on Knowledge, Truth, and Reality: Attributes of Consciousness in an Anti-Realist Framework

The Great Mysteries: Known, Knowable, and Unknowable Foundations of Philosophy

April 16, 2025

The Great Mysteries: Known, Knowable, and Unknowable Foundations of Philosophy

Humanity’s pursuit of understanding is shaped by enduring questions – the Great Mysteries of existence, time, space, causality, life, consciousness, matter, energy, fields, infinity, purpose, nothingness, and free will. These enigmas, debated from ancient myths to modern laboratories, persist because of the inescapable limits of our cognition and perception. Our brains, with their finite 86 billion neurons, grapple with a universe of unfathomable complexity. Our senses – sight, hearing, touch – perceive only a sliver of reality, blind to ultraviolet light, infrasound, or phenomena beyond our evolutionary design. We cannot know what senses we lack, what dimensions or forces remain invisible to our biology. The universe, spanning an observable 93 billion light-years and 13.8 billion years, appears boundless, hiding truths beyond our reach. Together, these constraints – finite brain, limited senses, unknown missing senses, and an apparently boundless universe – render the unknowable a fundamental fact, not a mere obstacle but a cornerstone of philosophical inquiry.

Knowing itself is subjective, an attribute of consciousness, not a separate mystery. To know – the sky is blue, 2+2=4 – requires a conscious mind to perceive, interpret, and understand. How we know we know is contentious, as reflection on knowledge (am I certain?) loops back to consciousness’s mystery, fraught with doubt and debate. This ties knowing to the unknowable: if consciousness limits what and how we know, some truths remain beyond us. Philosophy’s task is to acknowledge this, setting initial and boundary conditions – assumptions – for endeavors like science or ethics. The unknowable is the philosophy of philosophy, preventing us from chasing mirages or clutching at straws. The mysteries intertwine – existence needs time’s flow, space grounds physical being, causality falters at its first cause, consciousness shapes knowing – luring us with connections that reveal little. We classify knowledge as known (grasped), knowable (graspable), and unknowable (ungraspable), rooted in consciousness’s limits. Ignoring this, philosophers and physicists pursue futile absolutes, misled by the mysteries’ web. This essay explores these enigmas, their links, and the necessity of grounding philosophy in the unknowable.

I. The Tripartite Classification of Knowledge

Knowledge, an expression of consciousness, divides into known, knowable, and unknowable, a framework that reveals the Great Mysteries’ nature. The known includes verified truths – facts like gravity’s pull or DNA’s structure – established through observation and reason. These are humanity’s achievements, from Euclid’s axioms to quantum theory. The knowable encompasses questions within potential reach, given new tools or paradigms. The origin of life or dark energy’s nature may yield to inquiry, though they challenge us now. The unknowable marks where our finite nature – biological, sensory, existential – sets impassable limits.

The unknowable stems from our constraints. Our brains struggle with infinite regress or absolute absence, bound by their finite capacity. Our senses capture visible light, not gamma rays; audible sound, not cosmic vibrations. We lack senses for extra dimensions or unseen forces, ignorant of what we miss. The universe, vast and expanding, hides realms beyond our cosmic horizon or before the Big Bang’s earliest moments (~10^-43 seconds). This reality – finite cognition, limited perception, unknown sensory gaps, boundless cosmos – makes it inevitable that some truths are inaccessible to us. We are embedded in time, space, and existence, unable to view them externally. Philosophy’s task is to recognize these limits, setting assumptions that ground endeavors. Ignoring the unknowable risks mirages – false promises of answers where none exist – leaving us clutching at straws instead of building knowledge.

II. The Great Mysteries: A Catalog of the Unknowable

The Great Mysteries resist resolution, their unknowability shaping the assumptions we must make. Below, I outline each, situating them in the tripartite framework, then explore their interconnected web, which lures yet confounds us.

Existence: Why Is There Something Rather Than Nothing?

Existence’s origin, from Leibniz to Heidegger, remains a foundational enigma. The known includes observable reality – stars, particles, laws – but why anything exists is unclear. Reason tells us that existence must be because it is compelled to be so, but what those compulsions might be defies our comprehension. There must have been some prior condition which made it “easier” for there to be existence than not. The knowable might include quantum fluctuations sparking the Big Bang, yet these assume causality and time. The unknowable is the ultimate “why,” demanding a perspective outside existence, impossible for us. Metaphysicians chasing a final cause risk mirages, assuming an answer lies within reach, when philosophy must set existence as an unprovable starting point.

Time: What Is Its True Nature?

Time governs not only life, but the existence of anything. Yet its essence eludes us. We observe some of its effects – clocks, seasons – and the knowable includes relativity’s spacetime or quantum time’s emergence. But is time linear, cyclic, or illusory? Its subjective “flow” defies capture. To know time, we’d need to transcend it, beyond temporal beings. Ancient eternal gods and block-time models falter, pursuing clarity where philosophy must assume time’s presence, not its essence. The unidirectional arrow of time just is. Brute fact which neither allows nor permits any further penetration.

Space: What Is Its Fundamental Reality?

Space, reality’s stage, seems familiar but confounds. We know its measures – distances, volumes – and the knowable includes curved spacetime or extra dimensions. But what space is – substance, relation, emergent – remains unknowable. Why three dimensions, enabling physical existence (stars, bodies), not two or four? We cannot exit space to see its nature, and Planck-scale probes (~10^-35 meters) elude us. Cosmologies from Aristotle to multiverses assume space’s knowability, risking straw-clutching when philosophy must posit space as a given.

Causality: Does Every Effect Have a Cause?

Causality drives science, yet its scope is unproven. We know cause-effect patterns – stones fall, reactions occur – and the knowable might clarify quantum indeterminacy. But is causality universal or constructed? The first cause – what sparked existence – remains sidestepped, with science starting a little after the Big Bang and philosophy offering untestable gods or regresses. To know causality’s reach, we’d need to observe all events, which is impossible. Thinkers like Hume assume its solvability, ignoring that philosophy must treat causality as an assumption, not a truth.

Life: What Sparks Its Emergence?

Life’s mechanisms – DNA, evolution – are known, and abiogenesis may be knowable via synthetic biology. We search for where the spark of life may have first struck but we don’t know what the spark consists of. Why matter becomes “alive,” or life’s purpose, is unknowable. And as long as we don’t know, those who wish to can speculate about souls. Animists saw spirits, biologists study chemistry, yet both chase a threshold beyond perception. Assuming life’s knowability risks mirages; philosophy grounds biology by positing life as an empirical phenomenon, not explaining its essence.

Consciousness: Why Do We Experience?

Consciousness, where knowing resides, is our core mystery. We know neural correlates; the knowable includes mapping them. But why processes yield experience – the hard problem – is unknowable, as consciousness cannot access others’ qualia or exit itself. How we know we know – certainty, doubt – is contentious, from Plato’s beliefs to Gettier’s challenges, tying knowing’s subjectivity to consciousness’s limits. Seeking universal theories risks mirages; philosophy assumes consciousness as given.

Matter, Energy, Fields: What Are They Fundamentally?

Matter, energy, and fields are known via models—atoms, quanta, waves. Every model uses initial and boundary conditions which, themselves, can not be addressed. The knowable includes quantum gravity. But their essence—what they are—may be unknowable. What is the stuff of the fundamental particles. Are fields real or fictions? Atomists to string theorists chase answers, but Planck-scale realities defy us. Assuming a final ontology risks mirages; philosophy sets these as frameworks, not truths.

Infinity: Can We Grasp the Boundless?

Infinity, the uncountable, defies intuition. It is a placeholder for the incomprehensible. We know mathematical infinities (Cantor’s sets) and use them; the knowable might clarify physical infinity (space’s extent). But infinity’s reality or role is unknowable—our finite minds falter at boundlessness, paradoxes (Zeno’s) persist. Mathematicians seeking proofs assume too much; philosophy posits infinity as a tool, not a fact.

Purpose: Does Existence Have Meaning?

Purpose shapes ethics and religion, yet is unproven. We know human meanings (values); the knowable might include evolutionary drives. But cosmic purpose – existence’s “for” – is unknowable, needing intent we cannot access. Existentialists and theologians project meaning, risking straws; philosophy assumes purpose as human, not universal. What compelled the Big Bang? or the existence of the universe? Was that some deeper Law of Nature? A Law of the Super-Nature?

Nothingness: What Is Absolute Absence?

Nothingness probes “nothing.” We know quantum vacuums fluctuate; the knowable might explore pre-Big Bang states. But true nothingness – absence of all – is unknowable, as we exist in “something.” To have something the framework of existence must be present and if then something is removed do we get to nothingness or are we left with the space of existence? With numbers we cannot derive zero except by subtracting one from one. But without something how do we even conceptualise nothing? Can nothingness only be defined by first having something? Parmenides and physicists assume answers, but philosophy must posit somethingness as our starting point.

Free Will: Are We Truly Free?

Free will grounds morality, yet is unclear. We know brain processes; the knowable includes mapping agency. But freedom versus determinism is unknowable – we cannot isolate uncaused acts or escape causality. Augustine to Dennett chase clarity, but philosophy assumes will as a practical condition, not a truth.

Perplexing Connections: A Web of Mirages

The mysteries intertwine, with knowing, as consciousness’s attribute, weaving through their links luring us toward insight yet leading nowhere. Existence and time are inseparable – being requires change which in turn needs time to flow. But what is the time and what does it flow through? Physical existence demands three-dimensional space – real things (quarks, trees) occupy it, unlike abstractions – yet why three dimensions, not two or four, baffles us. Causality binds these, an empirical fact – events follow causes – but the first cause, existence’s spark, is dodged, leaving a void.

  • Existence and Time: Existence implies dynamism; a timeless “something” feels unreal. Heraclitus tied being to flux, physics links time to entropy. But why existence exists loops to when it began, and time’s flow loops to existence’s cause. Our finite brains grasp sequences, not sources; senses see motion, not time’s essence; the boundless universe hides time’s start, if any. Philosophers like Kant (time as intuition) chase answers, but the link reveals only our limits, demanding we assume both as givens.
  • Space and Existence: Physical things require 3D space – a stone needs place, a star volume. Two dimensions lack depth for matter, four defy perception (a 4D “shadow” needs unimaginable light). Why 3D? Our embeddedness in space blocks an external view, senses miss other dimensions, and the cosmos may conceal alternatives. Descartes (space as extension) assumes knowability, but philosophy must posit 3D space as a condition, not explain it.
  • Causality’s Role: Causality stitches existence, time, space—events unfold in spacetime, caused by priors. Yet, the first cause – what began it? – is sidestepped. Science can only go back to a little after the Big Bang, philosophy offers gods or regresses, neither testable. Our observations halt at Planck scales, logic breaks at uncaused causes. Russell (“universe just is”) assumes closure, but causality’s origin remains an assumption, not a truth. Referring to a brute fact is the sure sign of having reached the unknowable.
  • Consciousness and Knowing: Knowing is consciousness’s act – perceiving, understanding, reflecting. How we know we know – certainty’s test – is debated, as consciousness doubts itself (Gettier, skeptics). This links all mysteries: existence’s why, time’s flow, space’s form depend on conscious knowing, subjective and limited, making their truths elusive.

These connections form a circular web – knowing needs consciousness, existence needs time, time needs space, space needs causality, causality needs existence – each leaning on others without a base we can reach. They tantalize, suggesting unity, but lead to mirages, as our finite minds cannot break the loop, our senses see only 3D, temporal projections, and the universe hides broader contexts. Ignoring this, thinkers pursue the web’s threads, clutching at straws when philosophy’s role is to set boundaries, not chase illusions.

III. The Futility of Overreaching

The Great Mysteries, interwoven, persist as unknowable, yet many refuse to see this. Philosophers debate existence or space’s nature, assuming logic captures them, blind to unprovable foundations. Neuroscientists claim consciousness will yield to scans, ignoring qualia’s gap. Physicists seek a Theory of Everything, presuming space, causality, matter have final forms, despite unreachable scales. The mysteries’ web fuels this folly—links like existence-time or causality-space suggest a solvable puzzle. But chasing these leads to mirages, as circularity traps us—time explains existence, space grounds causality, none stand alone.

This stems from assuming all is knowable. Science’s successes—vaccines, satellites—imply every question yields. Yet, the unknowable is philosophy’s guardrail. Without it, endeavors falter, like metaphysicians seeking existence’s cause or physicists probing causality’s origin, grasping at straws. Ancient skeptics like Pyrrho saw uncertainty’s value, grounding thought in limits, while modern thinkers often reject it, misled by the web’s false promise.

IV. Grounding Philosophy in the Unknowable

Acknowledging the unknowable is philosophy’s practical task, setting assumptions for science, ethics, art. It prevents chasing mirages, ensuring endeavors rest on firm ground:

  • Science: Assume space’s 3D frame, time’s flow, causality’s patterns, pursuing testable models (spacetime’s curve, life’s origin), not essences (space’s being, first causes).
  • Philosophy: Posit consciousness, free will as conditions for ethics, not truths to prove, avoiding loops to existence or causality.
  • Culture: Embrace mysteries in art, myth, as ancients did, using their web – time’s flow, space’s stage –  to inspire, not solve.

For example, DNA’s structure (known) and abiogenesis (knowable) advance biology, while life’s purpose is assumed, not chased. Space’s measures aid cosmology, its 3D necessity a starting point, not an answer.

V. Conclusion

The Great Mysteries – existence, time, space, causality, life, consciousness, matter, energy, fields, infinity, purpose, nothingness, free will – endure because our finite brains, limited senses, unknown missing senses, and boundless universe make the unknowable a fact. Their web – existence flowing with time, space enabling reality, causality faltering at its origin – lures but leads to mirages, circular and unresolvable. Ignoring this, philosophers and physicists chase straws, misled by false clarity. The unknowable is philosophy’s foundation, setting assumptions that ground endeavors. By embracing it, we avoid futile quests, building on the known and knowable while marveling at the mysteries’ depth, our place within their vast, unanswerable weave.

Related:

Knowledge is not finite and some of it is unknowable

https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2016/01/17/physicists-must-accept-that-some-things-are-unknowable/#6d2c5834ae1a

https://ktwop.com/2018/08/21/when-the-waves-of-determinism-break-against-the-rocks-of-the-unknowable/

https://ktwop.com/2017/10/17/the-liar-paradox-can-be-resolved-by-the-unknowable/

Physics cannot deal with nothingness

Tags:, , , ,
Posted in Philosophy, Science | Comments Off on The Great Mysteries: Known, Knowable, and Unknowable Foundations of Philosophy

Science ultimately needs magic to build upon

January 3, 2025

The purpose of the scientific method is to generate knowledge. “Science” describes the application of the method and the knowledge gained. The knowledge generated is always subjective and the process builds upon fundamental assumptions which make up the boundary conditions for the scientific method. These  assumptions can neither be explained or proved.

I find it useful to take knowledge as coming in 3 parts.

  1. known: This encompasses everything that we currently understand and can explain through observation, experimentation, and established theories. This is the realm of established scientific knowledge, historical facts, and everyday experiences.
  2. unknown but knowable: This is the domain of scientific inquiry. It includes phenomena that we don’t currently understand but that we believe can be investigated and explained through scientific methods. This is where scientific research operates, pushing the boundaries of our knowledge through observation, experimentation, and the development of new theories.
  3. unknown and unknowable: This is the realm that I associate with metaphysics, religion and theology. It encompasses questions about ultimate origins, the meaning of existence, the nature of consciousness, and other metaphysical questions that may not be amenable to scientific investigation.

Philosophy then plays the crucial role of exploring the boundaries between these domains, challenging the assumptions, and developing new ways of thinking about knowledge and reality.

I like this categorization of knowledge because

  • it provides a clear framework for distinguishing between different types of questions and approaches to understanding.
  • it acknowledges the limits of scientific inquiry and recognizes that there may be questions that science cannot answer, and
  • it allows for the coexistence of science, philosophy, religion, and other ways of knowing, each addressing different types of questions.

To claim any knowledge about the unknown or the unknowable leads inevitably to self-contradiction. Which is why the often used form “I don’t know what, but I know it isn’t that” is always self contradictory. It implies a constraint on the unknown, which is a contradiction in terms. If something is truly unknown, we surely cannot even say what it is not.

Given that the human brain is finite and that we cannot observe any bounds to our universe – in space or in time – it follows that there must be areas beyond the comprehension of human cognition. We invent labels to represent the “unknowable” (boundless, endless, infinite, timeless, supernatural, magic, countless, ….). These labels are attempts to conceptualize what is inherently beyond our conceptualization. They serve as placeholders for our lack of understanding. But it is the human condition that having confirmed that there are things we cannot know, we then proceed anyway to try and define what we cannot. We are pattern-seeking beings who strive to make sense of the world around us. Even when faced with the limits of our understanding, we try to create mental models, however inadequate they may be.

Human cognitive capability is limited not only by the brain’s physical size but also by the senses available to us. We know about some of the senses we lack (e.g., the ability to detect magnetic fields like some birds or to perceive ultraviolet light directly like some insects), but cannot know what we don’t know. We cannot even conceive of what other senses we might be missing. These are the “unknown unknowns,” and they represent a fundamental limit to our understanding of reality. Even our use of instruments to detect parameters we cannot sense directly must be interpreted by the senses we do have. We convert X-rays into images in the visible spectrum, or we represent radio waves as audible sounds. This conversion necessarily involves interpretation and introduces subjectivity. We also know that the signals generated by an animal’s eye probably cannot be understood by a human brain. The brain’s software needs to be tuned for the senses the brain has access to. The inherent limitations of human perception makes the subjective nature of our experience of reality unavoidable. The objectivity of all human observations is thus a mirage. Empiricism is necessarily subjective.

Scientific inquiry remains the most powerful tool humans have developed for understanding the world around us. With sophisticated instruments to extend our limited senses and by using conceptual tools such as mathematics and logic and reason we gain insights into aspects of reality that would otherwise be inaccessible to us. Never mind that logic and reason are not understood in themselves. But our experience of reality is always filtered through the lens of our limited and species-specific senses. We cannot therefore eliminate the inherent subjectivity of our observations and the limitations of our understanding. We cannot know what we cannot know.

I do not need to invoke gods when I say that “magic” exists, when I define “magic” as those things beyond human comprehension. This definition avoids superpower connotations and focuses on the limits of our current knowledge. In this sense, “magic” is a placeholder for the unknown. I observe that the process of science requires fundamental assumptions which are the boundary conditions within which science functions. These assumptions include:

  • Existence of an External Reality: Science assumes that there is an objective reality independent of our minds.
  • Existence of Matter, Energy, Space, and Time: These are the fundamental constituents of the physical universe as we understand it.
  • Causality: Science assumes that events have causes and that these causes can be investigated.
  • Uniformity of Natural Laws: Science assumes that the laws of nature are the same everywhere in the universe and throughout time.
  • The possibility of Observation and Measurement: Science depends on the assumption that we can observe and measure aspects of reality.
  • The biological and medical sciences observe and accept but cannot explain life and consciousness.

Science operates within a framework given by these fundamental assumptions which cannot be  explained. These incomprehensibilities are the “magic” that science builds upon. Science can address them obliquely but cannot question them directly without creating contradictions. If we were to question the existence of an external reality, for example, the entire scientific enterprise would become meaningless. Science can investigate their consequences and refine our understanding of what they are not, but cannot directly prove or disprove them. These assumptions are – at least currently – beyond human comprehension and explanation. Science builds upon this “magic” but cannot explain the “magic”.

Magic is often ridiculed because it is perceived as invoking beings with supernatural powers which in turn is taken to mean the intentional violation of some of the laws of nature. The core issue lies in the definitions of “magic” and  “supernatural.” I take supernatural to be “that which is beyond the laws of nature as we know them.” But we tend to dismiss the supernatural rather too glibly. If something is beyond comprehension it must mean that we cannot bring that event/happening to be within the laws of nature as we know them. And that must then allow the possibility of being due to the “supernatural”. If we do not know what compels existence or causality then we cannot either exclude a supernatural cause (outside the laws of nature as we know them). In fact the Big Bang theory and even quantum probabilities each need such “outside the laws of nature” elements. A black hole is supernatural. Singularities in black holes and the Big Bang represent points where our current understanding of physics breaks down. The laws of general relativity, which describe gravity, become undefined at singularities. In this sense, they are “beyond” our current laws of nature. A singularity where the laws of nature do not apply is “supernatural”. Dark energy and dark matter are essentially fudge factors and lie outside the laws of nature as we know them. We infer their existence from their gravitational effects on visible matter and the expansion of the universe, but we haven’t directly detected them. Collapsing quantum wave functions which function outside space and time are just as fantastical as Superman. All these represent holes in our understanding of the universe’s composition and dynamics. That understanding may or may not come in the future. And thus, in the now, they are supernatural.

Supernatural today may not be supernatural tomorrow. It is the old story of my technology is magic to someone else. Magic is always beyond the laws of nature as we know them. But what is magic today may remain magic tomorrow. We cannot set qualifications on what we do not know. What we do not know may or may not violate the known laws of nature. While we have a very successful theory of gravity (general relativity) that accurately predicts the motion of planets, we don’t fully understand the fundamental nature of gravity. We don’t know how it is mediated. In this sense, there is still an element of “magic” or mystery surrounding gravity. We can describe how it works, but not ultimately why. The bottom line is that we still do not know why the earth orbits the sun. We cannot guarantee that everything currently unexplained will eventually be explained by science. There might be phenomena that remain permanently beyond our comprehension, or there might be aspects of reality that are fundamentally inaccessible to scientific investigation. By definition, we cannot fully understand or categorize what we do not know. Trying to impose strict boundaries on the unknown is inherently problematic. We cannot assume that everything we currently don’t understand will necessarily conform to the laws of nature as we currently understand them. New discoveries might require us to revise or even abandon some of our current laws.

The pursuit of scientific knowledge is a journey into the unknown, and we will encounter phenomena that challenge our existing understanding. But we cannot question the foundational assumptions of science without invalidating the inquiry.

Science depends upon – and builds upon – magic.

Tags:, , , ,
Posted in Philosophy, Science | Comments Off on Science ultimately needs magic to build upon

How do I know I know what I know?

June 28, 2021

Most of what I say I know is actually what I only believe I know. It is only what I know by my own experience or reasoning or argument or calculation that has a higher status  – in my mind – than a belief. When I say I know the Earth is an oblate spheroid, it is not from my own experience but from that of others who I believe. In reality I believe I know that the Earth is an oblate spheroid. All that I know that is within my own experience is – at least in my own mind – a higher level of knowing than all that I believe I know from the experience of others.

It has always been a little, irritating niggle at the back of my brain that I can never know that what I interpret and experience as red in my mind may be what somebody else experiences in the same way as I experience brown. What I can communicate with another person are the labels red or brown. My brain has no other means of communicating what I experience as red except by the labels that language allows. What exactly does knowing mean? 

When a tree falls in a forest and there is nobody to hear, there is no sound.

A sound is an interpretation by a brain of electrical signals generated by an organ for the detection of pressure fluctuations (vibrations) in air. When the tree falls it generates air pressure fluctuations. If there is no ear to detect the signals, there is no sound. If a deaf person is in the forest there are vibrations but there is no sound. If the vibrations are detected, but there is no brain to interpret the signals, there is no sound. A recording device detects air vibrations and converts them into something else which can be stored. The stored signals can later be used to reproduce those air vibrations through another device, which can then be interpreted as sound by a brain which has an ear to hear. But the recording device does not detect or record sound. A tape recording replayed on the moon’s surface has no atmosphere to vibrate and would create no sound, even if an intrepid astronaut with both an ear and a brain was standing next to it. Sound is in the brain and is both enabled and constrained by the physical capabilities of the hearing organ connected to that brain. The same pressure fluctuations may generate different interpretations of sound in different human brains. Cacophony to me is what is called modern music by others. The connection between the human ear and the human brain are similar to, but not the same as, the connection between a canine ear and a canine brain. My inability to fully appreciate a wolf’s howl is the same type of inability as of a wolf listening to Beethoven. Who knows what the other hears?

Sound is a cognitive thing. It is of the brain and necessarily subjective. 

And so it is with knowing. To know is a cognitive thing. It is of the brain and necessarily subjective.

My best, considered definition of knowledge goes like this: Knowledge is anything and everything, but only those things, that a brain can comprehend to be knowledge. 

This is a somewhat circular definition and is a little unsatisfactory because it does not say very much more than that knowledge is what knowledge is. But it is still the best that all our 10,000 years of philosophy and metaphysics has been able to come up with. Knowledge and knowing are not quite the same thing. As a noun knowledge is difficult enough but as a verb, to know is even more elusive. Knowing in philosophy is generally classified into three kinds of knowing:

  1. Knowing that – some proposition is true,
  2. Knowing how – to do something, and
  3. Knowing by acquaintance – by personal experience

I note that I cannot share my knowing. I can share a piece of knowledge (and that encompasses whatever my brain tells me I know) but another brain has to judge for itself whether it knows that piece of knowledge. How does my brain know that it knows? How do I know if what I know is true? Ultimately it seems to come down to what my brain believes that it knows and what it believes to be true.

The whole branch of epistemology is concerned mainly with the first kind of knowing where a brain knows that some proposition is true.  Knowing cannot, in itself, be conflated with being true. Many people once knew that the earth was flat. A brain may know what it knows but that knowing does not confer truth. Any such knowing is, no doubt, a piece of knowledge for that brain. Even if a certain knowing (say that the earth was flat) is shared by multitudes of people, that multiplicity of knowing is no less subjective and carries no greater truth value. Any brain may know many things which are, in fact, false. Many brains, because they are so similar, may know the same false things. The fact of knowing does not carry a truth-value, but it does carry a belief of truth for that particular brain. And that leads me to conclude that no truth can exist except as a subjective belief in a brain.

Knowing and truth are both subjective. They are both beliefs.

I had forgotten that I had written this about belief a few years ago:

Primordial Belief:

Most of what we therefore consider to be “our” knowledge is actually somebody else’s knowledge and not “known” to ourselves. However our belief in these persons leads to us claiming that knowledge as our own as being part of the body of knowledge available to humanity. The longer some statement has been within the body of knowledge, the stronger is our belief in that statement. Most of our actions are based then, not on our own personal knowledge, but on the belief that whatever lies within the body of knowledge of humanity is true.

But it strikes me that there is an assumption, a belief, which underlies every thought, every perception. This “primordial belief” is in fact implicit in every living thing. In fact it is so intrinsically intertwined with life that it may well be a part of the definition of what life is. This “primordial belief” is that the flow of time is unhindered and that a future exists. I breathe because there is future to breathe for. I cannot know when I take a breath that there will not be another one. Every living thing – a cell, a microbe, a virus, a tree or a human –  does what it does because there is a future (explicitly or implicitly) it believes it can live in. Even the very last breath I take will be taken in the belief that there will be another one to come. A belief in my future is existential.

A belief in a future is inherent in life. There can be a future without life (and there probably will be), but there is no form of life which does not have an implicit belief in its own future.

So every conscious mind (and that includes atheists, agnostics, religious fanatics, scientists and even economists) has this primordial, fundamental belief that a future exists. That, that future exists, can not be within the space of knowledge. All religions exist in the space of ignorance. But long before any of the “beliefs” they adopt comes the primordial belief that every living thing has  – that it has a future.

Tags:,
Posted in Philosophy | 1 Comment »

Without first having religions, atheism and agnosticism cannot exist

June 27, 2017

I take science to be the process by which areas of ignorance are explored, illuminated and then shifted into our space of knowledge. One can believe that the scientific method is powerful enough to answer all questions – eventually – by the use of our cognitive abilities. But it is nonsense to believe that science is, in itself, the answer to all questions. As the perimeter surrounding human knowledge increases, what we know that we don’t know, also increases. There is what we know and at the perimeter of what we know, lies what we don’t know. Beyond that lies the boundless space of ignorance where we don’t know what we don’t know.

Religions generally use a belief in the concept of a god (or gods) as their central tenet. By definition this is within the space of ignorance (which is where all belief lives). For some individuals the belief may be so strong that they claim it to be “personal knowledge” rather than a belief. It remains a belief though, since it cannot be proven. Buddhism takes a belief in gods to be unnecessary but – also within the space of ignorance – believes in rebirth (not reincarnation) and the “infinite” (nirvana). Atheism is just as much in the space of ignorance since it is based on the beliefs that no gods or deities or the supernatural do exist. Such beliefs can only come into being as a reaction to others having a belief in gods or deities or the supernatural. But denial of a non-belief cannot rationally be meaningful. If religions and their belief in gods or the supernatural did not first exist, atheism would be meaningless. Atheism merely replaces a belief in a God to a belief in a Not-God.

I take the blind worship of “science” also to be a religion in the space of ignorance. All physicists and cosmologists who believe in the Big Bang singularity, effectively believe in an incomprehensible and unexplainable Creation Event. Physicists who believe in dark matter or dark energy, as mysterious things, vested with just the right properties to bring their theories into compliance with observations of an apparently expanding universe, are effectively invoking magic. When modern physics claims that there are 57 fundamental particles but has no explanation as to why there should be just 57 (for now) or 59 or 107 fundamental particles, they take recourse to magical events at the beginning of time. Why there should be four fundamental forces in our universe (magnetism, gravitation, strong force and weak force), and not two or three or seven is also unknown and magical.

Agnosticism is just a reaction to the belief in gods. Whereas atheists deny the belief, agnostics merely state that such beliefs can neither be proved or disproved; that the existence of gods or the supernatural is unknowable. But by recognising limits to what humans can know, agnosticism inherently accepts that understanding the universe lies on a “higher” dimension than what human intelligence and cognitive abilities can cope with. That is tantamount to a belief in “magic” where “magic” covers all things that happen or exist but which we cannot explain. Where atheism denies the answers of others, agnosticism declines to address the questions.

The Big Bang singularity, God(s), Nirvana and the names of all the various deities are all merely labels for things we don’t know in the space of what we don’t know, that we don’t know. They are all labels for different kinds of magic.

I am not sure where that leaves me. I follow no religion. I believe in the scientific method as a process but find the “religion of science” too self-righteous and too glib about its own beliefs in the space of ignorance. I find atheism is mentally lazy and too negative. It is just a denial of the beliefs of others. It does not itself address the unanswerable questions. It merely tears down the unsatisfactory answers of others. Agnosticism is a cop-out. It satisfies itself by saying the questions are too hard for us to ever answer and it is not worthwhile to try.

I suppose I just believe in Magic – but that too is just a label in the space of ignorance.

 

Tags:, , ,
Posted in Philosophy, Religion, Science | Comments Off on Without first having religions, atheism and agnosticism cannot exist

Can a religious person be a “good” scientist?

May 28, 2015

Can a religious person be a “good” scientist?

I find this to be rather a simple question to address and one which does not need to be unnecessarily complexified*. I find diagrams simpler and more powerful than jargon which revels in its own complexity.

What is outside of knowledge – by definition –  is ignorance.

Beliefs – by definition – lie in the space of ignorance.

Faith and Religions lie in the space of beliefs, and

therefore within the space of ignorance.

Science is the rigorous process by which we reduce ignorance and gain knowledge.

knowledge in the space of ignorance

knowledge in the space of ignorance

Science is a process

Science is a process

Science is in conflict with religion only if the religion contains a belief which is falsified as science converts some ignorance to knowledge.

There is no reason why a religious person cannot be a “good” scientist except if he maintains a belief in a piece of ignorance which has been falsified.

A religious person who declines to subject some belief to the scientific process for conversion into knowledge can not be a scientist (let alone a “good” scientist) with regard to that piece of ignorance. But he could still be a scientist, and a “good” scientist in areas which are not impinged by his beliefs.

* I use complexify to mean “complicate unnecessarily”

Tags:, , ,
Posted in Religion, Science | Comments Off on Can a religious person be a “good” scientist?