Lasse

If that would be possible than our science is not science. I wonder how many scientists believes in what they are doing... The professor's of the past week's classes does that at least and I believe the knowledge they shared is the best available. Note science is not just physics. There are mathematics, chemistry, biology, medical sciences, engineering, social sciences, etc... One can not know everything in every sciences. I tend to believe that the unknown part of those sciences are as true and right as they can be. How this believe/trust could jeopardise the goals and methodologies of science? I feel it is rather motivating. I am just an insignificant user of most of the scientific results while I have the area of expertise where I know more than most of the population. It still does not mean that I know every single thing in my scientific area or that I could not further evolve my knowledge... Does times relativity meaning that is not universally applied? Can there be space without time? (I.e nonexisten or absolute infinite in nature?How? Does times relativity meaning that is not universally applied? Can there be space without time? (I.e nonexisten or absolute infinite in nature)? How?

Do not be so impatient koti. Learning is a process as does science. I need the time to process the information. I showed an example why science eventually requires certain level of faith. My recognitions try not to double approve the clear expessions and straightforward explanations of the members in the tread but try to pick points which does require further clarification. Please do not acuse when you reply. Do not fill the lack of knowledge about me with your belief how I am...

Once religious recognitions were the best Science humanity had. See the reasons why pyramids were built and the scientific knowledge of the time needed to create those. (or the Greeks, Rome...) I think is is difficult to separate Science from Religion at some fundamental level. Both is seeking to understand reality. I think religion is evolving although the classic religions fail to recognize it. Can Science recognize its fundamental cognitive responsibility in humanities value recognition and be clear enough to be perceivable to the uneducated masses too? I.e no glitches at the fundamentals 1/0... Such clarifications could reduce the religious aspects of science

Still has a 3D space with(in) the time of recognition of the observable, measurable, determinable physical process.

How something can be universally static? Everything has reference points at least in the form of space (time).

Could anyone confidently deny the existence of past, Present, and future? Can I believe that there is future, even it can not be scientifically proved until it happened? Can I believe that there is scientific evidence out there what we not yet discovered but could more profoundly describe the Nature of Reality? At least they has to be partially true. Any theory. Every theory will be recognized in Nature. Than since we have an answer, but not yet the answer, I can fill the gap of uncertainity with faith.

Hello beecee, The Spanish conquerors were perceived once as supernatural entities. (relative primitivity....) There is no final solution...there is always an upcoming moment of time... This potential of time seems to be infinite. Time seems to be an Universally measurable information. An advanced intelligence (if there could be any) would develop/evolve by time as well.

We can measure the elements on Nature: space-time, energy, matter. Nature seems to be Real. So far I can recognize Science seek to understand this Natural Reality...

One thing is sure, I believe more in Science and in any of its potential discoveries and explonations than in any of the current religions collateral recognitions (90+%). I am happy that science can not absolutely exclude the existence of absolutely Intelligent immortal conscious entities. The Universe is Big and Old I think this believe can not be taken away from me because I have the freedom of mind to handle information as clear as I am able to. Question everything... I think scientific evidence (we reach the age of technological singularity ca 5 bilion years after the sun burst to exist.) Our own rapid technological evolution suggest that we will reach advanced AI in 1000 years latest. Knowing the size and age of the Universe I see a 99.999% chance that advanced artificial intelligence already exist since a billion years minimum. God. Is it supernatural? I believe there can be artificial intelligence supported immortal entities originate from Nature. You can not take the believe away from me that there is an evolutionary path in Nature to reach that state. Life is a possibility...

This i know and I do so Why would that be? If I want to learn something, do I have to trust(believe, have faith in), that the information I will learn is our best theory? Do you think if I can not trust something I can accept it as true fact? (e.q 90% of religious writings) I have to add that I do believe that those recognitions made back than were the best answers on questions those times had. One could say the source of knowledge at the time.

Could the recognition (theory?) that Nature is real be challenged?

I have fate because I trust Science and its philosophy upon it is seeking to understand Nature. Again you do not have all the answers. I trust that the scientific philosophies pointed above as well, will lead to better, science provided fact based, better understanding. It is a strong believe, one could call it faith.

If a theory has proof originating from Nature than does the theory has an answer? Which is more trustworthy: A theory or the observable and measurable evidence based theory i.e answer?

True.

Hello Gee, I think scientifically proved truth just right can be. I think they are related L

Which geometry space can have if it has velocity? Can space has velocity (speed/rate) with which it is expanding? Does its perception and presentation is related to the physical circumstances(energy/mass) in which the observation occure? Can we confidentally say space is absolutely static? If space has velocity can it be impacted by mass? How? Space is volume. Basic 4D information. Time can not be sepatered from it. Could you give me a handful of it (space or time)? Can I say that they are still part on Nature and by that they seems to be physical? If the Laws of Nature can be true Universally isn't it applied through space and time or space is just a consequence? Can space itself has acceleration or can it have firm velocity (with applied limit measurable by Time) or Does space is absolutely static? If space could have velocity would that mean that it has a center or space is absolutely amorphous? Is it possible to count space(time) as an observer i.e. from its point of view we observe?

This is so true. That is why my basic believe is in Nature (the real thing) and in science seeking to understand it. I know we do not know everything. Nature is real and that can not be relative. Or is it a scenario when nature is not real? I have the believe that with the approach scientists seeking to recognize, understand and describe our common reality is the right path to discover Nature.

True. I/0. I believe that it has an answer. And thereby i believe that our scientists sooner or later will be able to give an answer. I believe scientists will be able to explain infinity or finite. Relativity and Reality. Determin the smallest possible unit of space and time (if they did not do that yet). I believe we will be able to digitally recognize reality. My beliefs changing as science progresses and my understanding is developing. Until I do not understand everything, the unknown part of that knowledge is handled as the believed to be good part of my individual recognition. I think religion is very individual.

It depends. What I know became culture as I teach and raise my kids related to that. Me, They,We are Society. Culture impact science or Science impact Culture? I would vote on the second. They seems to be fundamentally interconnected at the end of the day. I believe what I know. Or what I know that you know

We did not born with what we know today. I do not know what I will learn tomorrow. Do you know everything?

Part of what I do not know. Scientists still has questions. I believe they right what they know Now and that the future questions and answers will be right as well. Some of the questions not yet set... I believe they will be right

On this we disagree. They support one another. I recognize that there are things I do not understand. I know what I know.

Exactly On the level of my understanding. I know some, the rest, I believe You know what you know, and set the right questions untill I try to catch up to understand. I can assure you, there are many in my shoe

This I know. I know you know. I sense also what you do not know. You can not say in the name of science that you know everything. I am not a scientist but I experience your recognitions. If I know something what I previously believed than what is it? My culture? My religion? My intuition? All of them?

I believe the Einstein is right. I do not exactly know since it can not yet explain my metaphysical values but for sure so far perfectly points every physical entities whereabout and whatabout(energy, matter in space (time) I am excited about what our scientists seek to discover and understand. I believe (I dont exactly know) but I sense that Science raises Humanity out of darkness. Does science is my religion than?