Are we limiting our view of science , as most things are a mixture of predictable contents , as well as flexible unpredictable contents. " .

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

.

I would propose ( only propose ) that we could possibly ,need , to move to taking advantage of all the greater volume of signals coming out of reality .

 

We used to be content to have a ' little red light ' coming on , and shining red , to indicate a piece of complicated equipment was ' ON ' or 'OFF ' . But that only takes us to the first level.

 

Should we wish to know in more depth, as to the functioning of a piece of complicated equipment . Then we my employ the use of an

 

Oscilloscope, signal analyser , whole body scanner, or perhaps an Engineer , in order to diagnose, or work out the current working capability of a given subject under scrutiny.

 

Such, I would suggest, is the current state of our investigations into the workings of the Universe.

 

We need to know more than :- yes it's on ! Yes it's working roughly ! ( sometimes this way and sometimes that) . But I would dare to suggest we are getting up to the ' Whole Body Scanner ' state of play. Where we need to pick up all the nauances of operation. Some of which record a steady constant value , other only portrayed by a pictorial and audible image , like a living baby in a womb . Or a brain with various areas of intense activity and other areas silent.

 

So perhaps our sensors are only picking up a small proportion of what is actually ,going on .

Yes the universe is ' ON ' . But how much of ' what is going on ' are we actually seeing ?

 

Perhaps there is a whole plethora of ' existence and activity ' that our current instruments are not sensitive to ?

 

 

Mike

Edited November 4, 2016 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[Strange]

Perhaps there is a whole plethora of ' existence and activity ' that our current instruments are sensitive to ?

 

 

We do look at a far wider range of signals and information than in the past - from neutrinos to gravitational waves, for example.

 

We also look at more combinations of these signals, and do more complex analysis of correlations and interactions between all these things.

 

But if there are things that we cannot detect then they cannot be part of science, for obvious reasons.

 

And purely subjective perceptions are not part of science, for similar reasons.

 

However, subjective effects such as the "attraction" you mention can, of course, be studied by science.

 

It really isn't clear what your point is. You need to be more specific about how something not currently studied or used by science could be useful.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

We do look at a far wider range of signals and information than in the past - from neutrinos to gravitational waves, for example.

 

We also look at more combinations of these signals, and do more complex analysis of correlations and interactions between all these things.

 

But if there are things that we cannot detect then they cannot be part of science, for obvious reasons.

 

And purely subjective perceptions are not part of science, for similar reasons.

 

However, subjective effects such as the "attraction" you mention can, of course, be studied by science.

 

It really isn't clear what your point is. You need to be more specific about how something not currently studied or used by science could be useful.

.

QUITE ! But attraction is only one minutiae of what is probably ' out there ' . The ' out there ' that I am really referring to in this thread ' that woolly bit, that non deterministic bit, that complex bit , that sophisticated bit , the bit that makes life interesting !

 

But if we knew what to look for , we would know how and where to look for it ! But if we are not sure what we are looking for , then we are unlikely to know how and where to look . ,

 

There is probably not an easy answers to that one .

 

Other than we must go and LOOK OVER THE EDGE !

 

 

 

Mike

Edited November 4, 2016 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[swansont]

.

Well I think , ' herein lays the problem ' . We currently think science understanding , must be couched in the current, ' centre stage ' language of science , namely mathematics. And exactness.

Another thing we are not going to indulge is another discussion about how you think math isn't necessary for science.

 

Science involves quantifying results. Math is inherently involved, somewhere along the line.

 

In order to succeed in her attraction. A woman will spend a great deal of creative activity to attract her male prey. Also , So with the peacock , although I beleive the sexes are reversed in this instance.

 

Whether 'set charge ' in the case of particles , the principle of attraction with ' women's hair ' . It is the same , perhaps with more sophistication. Maybe humans require a higher level of sophistication.

No, it's not. Electrostatic attraction is an inverse-square relationship between particles of opposite charge. Particles feeling this attraction will follow the laws of motion which describe their trajectories (if classical physics applies) or QM. It is nothing like being attracted to a woman's hair.

 

Math applies to the former. Your contention seems to be that math doesn't apply to the latter, or at the very least it's different math. So how can you claim that they are the same?

 

 

Some of the mechanism in life forms , from amoeba to human , are pretty sophisticated. So why not ' a sophisticated mechanism ' for sophisticated life ? Or sophisticated ' non living systems across the Universe?

Science is pretty sophisticated.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

Another thing we are not going to indulge is another discussion about how you think math isn't necessary for science.

Science involves quantifying results. Math is inherently involved, somewhere along the line.

 

 

No, it's not. Electrostatic attraction is an inverse-square relationship between particles of opposite charge. Particles feeling this attraction will follow the laws of motion which describe their trajectories (if classical physics applies) or QM. It is nothing like being attracted to a woman's hair.

Math applies to the former. Your contention seems to be that math doesn't apply to the latter, or at the very least it's different math. So how can you claim that they are the same?

 

Mike

 

 

Science is pretty sophisticated.

.

I am not saying maths is not required for science . I am saying it can not be ALL there is . Or should it always be centre stage .

 

If I gave a set of parameters to a medical scientist . I am sure with today's facilities he/she could build what looked like a human .

But it would not behave like a human , and it would not have all the wonderful neuinces or abilities of a human . As it would not posses all those ' woolly ' things like personality , free will , intelligence or many other personality traits. It is these latter attributes that in our case make us who we are .

 

Maybe the rest of the universe from atom to galaxies contains some of these ' woolly ' attributes that cannot be given by scientific rigour . And we should look for them , and embrace them , to help our overall understanding of the universe.

 

 

Mike

Edited November 4, 2016 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[Strange]

.

QUITE ! But attraction is only one minutiae of what is probably ' out there ' . The ' out there ' that I am really referring to in this thread ' that woolly bit, that non deterministic bit, that complex bit , that sophisticated bit , the bit that makes life interesting !

 

 

How do you know those "woolly" things are not already being looked at?

 

 

 

But if we knew what to look for , we would know how and where to look for it ! But if we are not sure what we are looking for , then we are unlikely to know how and where to look . ,

 

If you can't say what we should look for or how we should look for it, then this thread is pretty pointless.

[swansont]

.

I am not saying maths is not required for science . I am saying it can not be ALL there is . Or should it always be centre stage .

 

 

 

!

Moderator Note

Yes, I know. You have gone down this path before. We're not doing it again. You are free to go get a blog somewhere and expound on this to your heart's content. But here you are limited to either mainstream science, or presenting your somewhat fleshed-out idea. But shouting into the void about how there must be more? Nope.