The Limitations of Science, Again

[gibran2]

Here’s an excerpt from a very good talk given by physicist Lawrence Krauss and brought to my attention in this thread.

I’ve posted before about the limitations of science, and here’s a great example of a hardcore atheistic materialist scientist expressing humility and acknowleding the limitations of what can be known. He talks about how the universe in the very distant future will be very different from the universe of today, and that many of the phenomena we observe and incorporate into our theories today will be absent in the future. As a result, the hypothetical scientists of the very distant future, in spite of properly applying the scientific method, will be wrong about the nature and origins of the universe.

One thing he fails to address is the possibility that we too are in the same boat as that of future scientists, and that there are aspects of existence which were observable long ago but are no longer observable today. Anyhow, here’s the transcript of the last 10 minutes or so of his talk:

We should realize that there’s more we don’t understand about the universe than we do. And I want to give you an example of this.

In the far future – what’s going to happen in the far future? Remember, one hundred years ago we thought we lived in a static, eternal universe. What will the future bring? The amazing thing is for civilizations that live in the far future, what will they see? Well, the universe is accelerating. That means all the distant galaxies are getting carried away from us, and eventually they’ll move away from us faster than the speed of light – it’s allowed in general relativity. They will disappear. The longer we wait, the less we will see.

In a hundred billion years, any observers evolving on stars – and there will be stars just like our sun in a hundred billion years – any observers in civilizations evolving around those stars will see nothing except for our galaxy, which is exactly the picture they had in 1915. All evidence of the Hubble Expansion will disappear. Why? Because we won’t see the other galaxies moving apart from us. So they will have no evidence, in fact, of the Big Bang. They won’t see the Hubble Expansion, they won’t even know about dark energy (and I won’t go into that).

They won’t know about the cosmic microwave background – it will disappear too. It will red-shift away, and it turns out for fancy reasons – there’s plasma in our galaxy and when the universe is fifty times it’s present age, the microwave background won’t be able to propagate in our galaxy.

All evidence of the Big Bang will have disappeared.

And those scientists will discover Quantum Mechanics, discover Relativity, discover evolution, discover all the basic principles of science that we understand today - use the best observations that they can do with the best telescopes that they will build – and they will derive a picture of the universe which is completely wrong. They will derive a picture of the universe as being one galaxy surrounded by empty space that’s static and eternal.

Falsifiable science will produce the wrong answer.

 

[burnt]

Hes exactly correct. I hardly see this as a limitation though. We will always approach an end point but we have not yet approached it so we should keep going.

 

[gibran2]

That’s not his point at all!

His point emphasized the limitations of science – scientists can’t know about things that can’t be observed. Scientists of the very distant future would never support a theory of the universe that suggested there was more than one galaxy. They wouldn’t support such a theory because they would have no evidence to suggest it as a possibility. Their theories of the universe would all be consistent with a single galaxy existing in an immeasurably large void.

And his concluding point was this: They would be wrong.

 

[burnt]

All I mean is we haven't reached the farthest back we can see yet. When we reach that point we can't say anything more and could be wrong about whatever lies beyond that.

 

[gibran2]

All I mean is we haven't reached the farthest back we can see yet. When we reach that point we can't say anything more and could be wrong about whatever lies beyond that.

Yes, there is a limit to how far back we can see – he discusses this in the talk. And of course any speculation about what lies beyond what we can see is just that – speculation.

Scientists base their theories on what can be observed. But not everything that exists can be observed. There are some physical phenomena that can’t ever be observed, even in theory. This means that there are current theories about physical existence that are grossly incorrect. Because we don’t know what we don’t know, we can’t say which theories those might be.

 

[burnt]

Scientists base their theories on what can be observed. But not everything that exists can be observed. There are some physical phenomena that can’t ever be observed, even in theory. This means that there are current theories about physical existence that are grossly incorrect. Because we don’t know what we don’t know, we can’t say which theories those might be.

The theories based on what we currently observe don't need to rely on whats beyond what we can see. Thats why they are good theories. Quantum mechanics and relativity would be discovered regardless of whether or not we could see far away galaxies. Your trying to set science up as if it knows nothing again and thats just wrong. I have quite a few friends who are astronomers and they are pretty convinced its worthwhile its still looking up in the sky for more answers.

 

[gibran2]

...The theories based on what we currently observe don't need to rely on whats beyond what we can see. Thats why they are good theories. Quantum mechanics and relativity would be discovered regardless of whether or not we could see far away galaxies. Your trying to set science up as if it knows nothing again and thats just wrong. I have quite a few friends who are astronomers and they are pretty convinced its worthwhile its still looking up in the sky for more answers.

I’m not saying that science knows nothing – that’s ridiculous. The best expression of what I’m saying is a quote from Lawrence Krauss’ talk:

And those scientists will discover Quantum Mechanics, discover Relativity, discover evolution, discover all the basic principles of science that we understand today - use the best observations that they can do with the best telescopes that they will build – and they will derive a picture of the universe which is completely wrong.

We know and can observe things now that in the distant future will no longer be observable. This is a scientific fact.

But what’s interesting to me isn’t what will be unobservable in the distant future, but the fact that there might be unobservable phenomena right now. Of course, I can’t say what those “unobservables” might be, but it logically follows that if we can show that there will be unobservables in the future, then perhaps there are unobservables today. If that’s the case, then our lack of information may lead us to certain scientific conclusions that are completely wrong.

This is the primary limitation of science, and I don’t see any way around it: We must develop theories based on observations, yet there may be some very important and fundamental phenomena that cannot be observed. That’s a real problem.

 

[Cheeto]

I get what your saying, good points i might add. In this future case of another race, science would have a dramatic twist from what we have discovered, and that is because many things we have observed out of all the galaxies shapes what we know. It helps some theories, and disproves some theories, without the other galaxies to observe, lots of theories are not easily proved.

And with the laws of quantum physics, they would suggest that the galaxy just poped out of nowhere, like we say for particles now. They wouldn't have other galaxies to observe that our galaxy is moving through space near the speed of light, dark matter would also be hard to observe.

 

[Dedalus]

String theory is probably affected by unobservable forces. To me it's one of those edges/limitations where our abilities can no longer cast any light on reality, where we are met with utter darkness.

And as for the human mind... a single person will NEVER be able to completely understand the human mind. It is only a fraction of our minds that "understand" things, and because we are made for behaviors other than understanding (e.g. surviving, reproducing, regulating hormones, controlling our muscles), and these behaviors represent most of our brain power, it is impossible.

This paints a cool picture for me of a future where we have scientists devoted to understanding certain areas/functions of the brain, who could also be therapists to help out all people with all kinds of problems.

 

[deedle-doo]

But what’s interesting to me isn’t what will be unobservable in the distant future, but the fact that there might be unobservable phenomena right now. Of course, I can’t say what those “unobservables” might be, but it logically follows that if we can show that there will be unobservables in the future, then perhaps there are unobservables today. If that’s the case, then our lack of information may lead us to certain scientific conclusions that are completely wrong.

This is the primary limitation of science, and I don’t see any way around it: We must develop theories based on observations, yet there may be some very important and fundamental phenomena that cannot be observed. That’s a real problem.

I think it's even worse then that. This isn't just a limitation on science it is a limitation on human knowledge in general.

These kinds of arguments can make scientists a little edgy because they are occasionally used to produce arguments that aim to make science seem pointless. Science is obviously not pointless and is the best epistemological system yet for discovering truths about nature. Older systems led to occasional, accidental discovery of truths but nothing compared to the knowledge explosion our species has benefited from over the last few hundred years.

So there are things we don't know. Great! This means we get to recruit more grad students into labs.

There are things we don't know we don't know. Great! This means our grad students will HATE LIFE for a few years because their results make no sense. Eventually these things often get figured out and we learn a truth we did not suspect. This is the coolest science IMO.

There are things we cannot know. Shit! This kinda sucks on the surface of it. We would really like to have all the truths. Oh well. . . I'm getting over it now. Good thing there are so many things we probably can know.

There is actually very little at stake here. If there is a truth so remote that it has absolutely no influence on observable reality then knowing this truth gives you no benefit. Still, Krauss presents a really interesting perspective on the bias introduced by our our local environment. Thanks for sharing!

 

[Garfield]

I love this topic.
I regard myself as scientist, and I know on the other hand that science don´t and can´t know the truth.
All what science and the scientific aproach can produce are models which are approximations to truth.
Sometimes these approximations are close to reality sometimes not.
These models only need to be true enough in order to explain a certain phenomenon.

I would like to give you some mindcandies to chew on:

1. René Descartes was the founder of the cartesian worldview and one of the cofounders of science and the scientific approach as we know it today.
What only few people know is how he got to this point.
In 1619 he was part of the Habsburg army. During one night in a military camp he had a dream.
In this dream an angel appeared to him and told him that the only way to approach natures secrets is by using measurement and numbers.
Oooookaaaayyy!?
This means in a short form that science is based on a revelation by an angel.
Very rational, indeed!!! :lol:

2. Regarding that talk by Lawrence Krauss.
Perhaps his arguments about a far future society and their scientific knowledge are false too.

We know and can observe things now that in the distant future will no longer be observable. This is a scientific fact.

In my view this is again only a model.
There are a number of scientists who argue that the redshift in the lightspectrum of far distant galaxies does not come from their speed moving away from us, but from the gravitational pull of these objects on their emitted light.
One of these scientists was Burkhard Heim a german physicist.

If this model is closer to reality than the doppler effect model than the universe is not expanding in the way which seems to be "scientific fact" today. Subsequently far future scientists would be able to observe the universe as we do today.

I don´t want to start a discussion here about whether Heim or others are right or wrong.
Regarding Heim´s work I have to admit that the mathematical part is waaaayyy beyond my abilities, but some of his other conclusions are making sense to me. In addition his approach to a unified quantum field theory includes the emersion of consciousness.:d


If you would have asked a scientist let´s say 150 years ago about the "scientific facts" regarding our universe he would have pictured something what is entirely different to our todays view on it.
And I bet, that in 150 years scientists will laugh about our todays "scientific facts" too.
The scientific consensus is always at the current level of misapprehension.

But nevertheless science and the scientific approach are very useful tools.

Garfield

 

[joedirt]

That’s not his point at all!

His point emphasized the limitations of science – scientists can’t know about things that can’t be observed. Scientists of the very distant future would never support a theory of the universe that suggested there was more than one galaxy. They wouldn’t support such a theory because they would have no evidence to suggest it as a possibility. Their theories of the universe would all be consistent with a single galaxy existing in an immeasurably large void.

And his concluding point was this: They would be wrong.

This is so obvious. Imagine if you will a very advanced computer program with AI life. This AI life eventually becomes aware and starts testing it's environment for measurable observations that it can use to formulate hypothesis about it's nature. Do you think it's likely that these computer generated life forms would ever be able to grasp the fact that there was a human that actually programmed the entire simulation? Even if it did would it grasp that something had to also create it's creator..or would it be able to figure out that it's creater evolved from a big bang? I think not. Sure I could see them discovering their source code (DNA), I could even see them devising advanced mathematics from their own source code, and I could even see them devising way's to perceive every pixel on the screen and to travel across the screen entirely(theoretical physics)... But could these AI's ever leave the computer screen and fully grasp the world that it's creators live in? No.

The reason is simple. The AI bots would lack the tools necessary to see outside their world. They would have no way to directly or indirectly observe it.

Science is no different. Science is amazing in that we have made huge strives in understanding our environment and this world. Science is amazing in the leaps we've made in drug discovery and theoretical physics...but science as it works today will never ever be able to probe questions about spirit, or if there is a world outside this universe...which is spirit to me. As far as science is concerned spirit doesn't exist because there is no way to measure it. Spirit is a subjective experience to each individual and will not be bound by our petty human desire to categorize everything into neat little boxes. Science will never answer if hyperspace is real, but science will certainly be able to describe in molecular detail exactly how the experience is generated... that is for sure.

The thing that gets me the most with many scientists is the attitude that if science can explain it then it's not mystical.

Burnt I believe I've seen you claim that when we are able to isolate the neural pathways in our brains responsible for mystical experiences that ALL religions would have to admit they were wrong and go away. That's funny to me. Doesn't it seem logical to you that even if there were 'real' mystical experiences that it would have a neurochemical effect since our ONLY way of perceiving in the material world is with our biological senses? How else could a mystical experience arise? What makes them mystical is the nature of the experience itself and not the biological origin of the experience. Love, hate, greed, empathy all have biological origins to.

BTW I agree we will unlock those pathways in the brain...I watch this area very close.

Don't get me wrong. I love science and that's why I chose it as my career...but let's not make the mistake of propping science up as the only real view of reality. That's crazy. There is a lot beyond science...and it will be that way for a very very very long time...probably until there is a merging of scientists and true spiritual seekers....they both have the same goal after all. Discovering the truth.

 

[Dedalus]

Joedirt, it's just that the mind is too complex for us to even have the ability to understand all of its dynamics. But I don't feel any need to; I think we can have a general understanding of the way minds work that wouldn't exclude the meanings and importance of religions, but, in my view, their precision in portraying reality. Because they don't utilize scientific methods, each religion, when compared to others, is imprecise; that is, the religions are all hitting different spots around the mark. As a whole, though, they are accurate in that they cluster around the "truth." This truth is simply a oneness of being, a subjective understanding of one's place in the world, being in "a state of grace."

Religions are completely fine without the scientific method. They're like art's ultimate answers to the meaning of life; they use all the pictures in our minds, all the semblances of this life, this human and his experiences with his fellow beings, to answer, to the best of the ability of one with this foundation, the source and meaning and purpose of that life, this human, our foundation.

There are other ways of arriving at this ultimate self-understanding, and I believe beauty and love and acceptance of death are critical to those ways. Also important, and associated with science, is the realization that trying to understand everything is like trying to count to infinity. No real number is closer to infinity than any other real number.

Part of me believes, no, is almost sure, that corporations/governments/some very intelligent and rich assholes do not want us to know how our own minds really work. If everyone knew how (and why) their minds worked, they'd be able to make sense of their experiences and come to know beauty, love, and humility. There is a book called The Evolution of Consciousness, written a doctor who did 20 years of top-level brain research, in which he explains the mind (and its purpose) in such a clear, coherent, and logical way that I believe that to understand what he's saying is to be enlightened. I was blown away particularly by how it felt as if I was learning explicitly what I had felt implicitly during my DMT trip months before. This book is the GVG of understanding the mind. Unfortunately I lost it and must buy another one javascript:insertsmiley('%20','/forum/images/emoticons/icon_sad.gif'). But anyway, I think one of the reasons DMT is schedule I could be that they don't want anyone to diverge from the path carved out for them. How off topic am I? I've not even kept track of that, sorry. lol.

 

[longshot]

Isn't "science today" fighting the symptoms of being unsure of what will happen to us, and in what extend we can control that future?

The function of science today is to fight the symptoms of being unsure of our future.
And fighting the symptoms won't make the disease go away.

 

[benzyme]

??

the function of science is to develop testable models to answer testable questions.
it's a metadiscipline to find objective answers to questions.

 

[longshot]

??

the function of science is to develop testable models to answer testable questions.
it's a metadiscipline to find objective answers to questions.

Questions which have what origin?

 

[benzyme]

observation.
in order for something to be testable, it must be observable by others.
this is why explanations for metaphysical phenomena teeters on pseudoscience, because a lot of it is not observable by others at the same time, and there exists no physical model to emulate it.

 

[longshot]

Observation is an act after questions have been raised

 

[joedirt]

Observation is an act after questions have been raised

Not necessarily. It is quite possible to make on observation and then from that observation develop hypothesis about what was observed.

 

[easyrider]

Isn't "science today" fighting the symptoms of being unsure of what will happen to us, and in what extend we can control that future?

The function of science today is to fight the symptoms of being unsure of our future.
And fighting the symptoms won't make the disease go away.

I think uncertainty has become acceptable in modern science. All the groundbreaking realizations of 20th century quantum mechanics corroborate this. As to whether distant future scientists would reject the views of their distant predecessors because of the status of the universe in which they will live in — I think history would help in this scenario, wouldn't it? Surely enough, our documentation has advanced incredibly to the point where people in the future would be capable of comprehending how and why their predecessors came to their conclusions.