Necessity, Contingency and the Universe

[Markus Hanke]

12 hours ago, universaltheory said:

it justifies why science deals with the nature of our existence!

I would disagree with this. Science is an epistemological endeavour, not an ontological one - it is a system to organise knowledge. As such, I would argue that it seeks only to accumulate knowledge about our existence, not an understand of it.

This might seem like nitpicking, but it’s actually very important. Especially on science forums such as this one, I very often see people who seem to think that physics (e.g.) is there to seek fundamental truths of the universe - as such, viewpoints can become deeply entrenched, because they are mistaken for absolute truths or falsehoods. But it’s not like that. What we do in physics is make models of the universe, or aspects of it - it’s more like drawing a map of the territory. But such a map is true only insofar as it is a faithful representation of the territory; one can examine how well the map represents the territory, and what limitations the map has. Strictly speaking, saying a map is “true” or “false” does not make much sense, rather, it is a question of the degree of accuracy. For example, Newton is a less accurate representation of gravity than Einsteinian, but it is meaningless to say that either one is true or false.

[universaltheory]

1 hour ago, Markus Hanke said:

I would disagree with this. Science is an epistemological endeavour, not an ontological one - it is a system to organise knowledge. As such, I would argue that it seeks only to accumulate knowledge about our existence, not an understand of it.

This might seem like nitpicking, but it’s actually very important. Especially on science forums such as this one, I very often see people who seem to think that physics (e.g.) is there to seek fundamental truths of the universe - as such, viewpoints can become deeply entrenched, because they are mistaken for absolute truths or falsehoods. But it’s not like that. What we do in physics is make models of the universe, or aspects of it - it’s more like drawing a map of the territory. But such a map is true only insofar as it is a faithful representation of the territory; one can examine how well the map represents the territory, and what limitations the map has. Strictly speaking, saying a map is “true” or “false” does not make much sense, rather, it is a question of the degree of accuracy. For example, Newton is a less accurate representation of gravity than Einsteinian, but it is meaningless to say that either one is true or false.

Organising the knowledge of what? And accumulating the knowledge of existence for what?

Yes scientific knowledge does not depend on fundamental or absolute truth but only works with that truth which is consistent and complete with reality for the purpose of  checking our civilisation and balance it with reality.  Semiclassical mechanics became a special case of relative gravity and this mechanical point of view is still consistent and complete with reality up to justifiable and provable and verifiable degree of quantitative accuracy and cybernetic degree of certainty

[DrP]

On ‎23‎/‎06‎/‎2018 at 6:13 PM, universaltheory said:

What evidence?= quotations from previous propositions!

Quotations work to ferterlise the truth or falsity value behind the view point of our arguments.

Ifour point of view is wrong; quotations do nothing to justify it scientifically apart from making our view point religious in nature .

Some times asking oneself if science is a natural intelligent ability or an artificial ability is good though paradoxical! Because if it is a natural ability; then it justifies why science deals with the nature of our existence! But if it is artificial then science becomes another form of natual religion though not a supernatural one. Our minds can tweak or duplicate the nature of existence limitlessly and conserve this information in form of any kind of imagination possible. But when it comes to science; such imaginations must agree with reality as a limit else they collapse to the weight of their own incompleteness and inconsistencies

I don't really get what you are trying to say here - sorry.

On ‎23‎/‎06‎/‎2018 at 6:13 PM, universaltheory said:

What evidence?

The book is a 'signed copy'   -  signed by the author...  God?  -  It is a joke - obviously it is evidence of nothing but the sense of humour of the shop keeper.  

[universaltheory]

On 26/06/2018 at 1:16 PM, DrP said:

I don't really get what you are trying to say here - sorry.

The book is a 'signed copy'   -  signed by the author...  God?  -  It is a joke - obviously it is evidence of nothing but the sense of humour of the shop keeper.  

I really don't get what you are saying