What are all the assumptions science makes about reality?

[Mongu9719]

How exactly is science flawed if it gives us the most accurate view of reality. How exactly is science limited and what are it’s faulty assumptions? I’m playing devils advocate here.

[Rilles]

I guess you mean Materialistic Science.

 

1.Assuming you can understand what reality is by studying the content. Its kind of like being born inside a room and thinking you can understand the house by studying the patterns in the carpet. 

2. Assuming the Universe isnt intelligent and that only humans ”have” intelligence.

Edited March 18, 2020 by Rilles

[lmfao]

@Mongu9719 I wrote this to someone once in a similar conversation. I can potentially see a few angles to address this question, but I'll just go with the lens of science being incompatible with holism. So there's more than just what I'm saying here. 

One thing I could mention, scientists have been trying to explain consciousness in their framework. The " hard problem of consciousness" comes down to consciousness being beyond the "linear sum" ("principle of superposition" in physics but more generalised) of its parts. I think something being beyond the sum of its parts is impossible within the framework of physicalism, and also impossible in the framework of how we use logic. But who said the truth has to be grasped by logic? 

Physicalism is the view that reality is purely physical (whether its matter or energy). We assume that there is duality, that we can describe reality as being the sum of distinct objects (when I say we assume duality, I just mean that we can take the existence of boundaries to be something we can construct. Boundaries exist in order to ascertain the existence of more than 1 object.). Those objects can interlock, be chaotic, and interact with each other in whatever way you fancy but at the end of the day there's the assumption reality is nothing more than the "sum" of those objects.

For an analogy. If "reality" was a triangle, you can cut the triangle into as many pieces as you want but the triangle is still nothing more the sum of those pieces.

I think if you get a deep enough insight or look at the way our mind uses logic, you'll see that our rational brain can't really transcend this "sum of the parts" of thinking. For me this insight comes from imagining motion in space, and just the inherent duality to it all. Duality implies sum of the parts thinking by necessity. 

-----

It might be worth noting that there is a tautology in modern science by calling everything in reality physical within the framework of physicalism. Given this tautology, why would it be any different if I said everything in reality is spiritual? You might find this worth considering, why different tautologies exist. Why do some people say everything is love? There are millions of different tautological theories you can find, millions of different circular axiomatic systems. 

 

Edited March 18, 2020 by lmfao

[Javfly33]

Before going any further in your enquiry, I would ask myself "What do I mean when I say 'accurate view of reality'?

The question is, are we questioning science hability to understand reality as a whole or to understand a defined part of reality where we have put a label on? (A carpet, a chair, a human being, an elephant, cell...etc)

If your inquiry refers to the second, then it's probable that science will remain pretty solid in the questioning. However if your inquiry refers to the first, we don't have to even question because science doesn't even approach this scenario, since already assumes that reality is a physical field where objects appear. Therefore, after the physical field is recognized, all science has left to do is to focus in the objects. 

 

Edited March 18, 2020 by Javfly33

[RendHeaven]

Science has always taken IDENTITY on assumption.

[Forestluv]

13 hours ago, Mongu9719 said:

How exactly is science flawed if it gives us the most accurate view of reality. 

By adding in an "IF", an assumption is created which sets the narrative. This is a major block toward deepening and expanding understanding.

If we want to deepen/expand your understanding and transcend the question itself, we would need to inquire prior to those assumptions?  This would include contemplation of:

What does "flawed" mean?

What is "accurate" and "what is inaccurate"?

What is "reality"?

Proper contemplation would be "meta" to theoretical constructs which can cause a feeling of groundlessness, which the mind and body often resists. The tendency for the mind is to make assumptions, which provide a sense of grounding. If the mind can assume meanings for things like "flawed", "accurate" and "reality" it gives a sense of concrete grounding. However, the grounding is not concrete - it is shifting sand. 

The direction one proceeds is related to their energetic orientation. Is there a desire to create sandcastles, believing they are concrete castles? Or is there desire to realize the actual substance of sandcastles?

[Nahm]

@Mongu9719

How’s your daily practices going?

How’s the diet? 

You’re making a lot of ruminating threads, and I love ya. So I’m asking. 

[Mongu9719]

@Nahm Stop asking me questions. I am more concious than you. You should listen to me. 

[SamueLSD]

3 minutes ago, Mongu9719 said:

@Nahm Stop asking me questions. I am more concious than you. You should listen to me. 

Hehehehe, entertaining 

[electroBeam]

1 hour ago, Mongu9719 said:

@Nahm Stop asking me questions. I am more concious than you. You should listen to me. 

[PlayTheGame]

Once I realized the voidness of the material paradigm, it actually got me more interested in science. If it is not the end all be all how can science even explain things in the first place? It clearly does because science works so well, yet it is all a mental model of reality and not reality itself.

@Leo GuraPlease make a video on science from the metaphysical point of view, you kinda owe it to us after fucking with our minds so much lol. 

@electroBeam You work with CO2 emission etc right, I bet you would love this video too. It's easy to get caught up in the voidness of science when science is actually a beautiful symbolic description of reality, that we can use to create a myriad of machines and structures. 

 

[Free Mind]

You cannot prove anything in science. 
 

All major theories contain undefined variables. For example, energy in physics. 

[Arzack]

That reality is 100% rational. Irrational numbers are just an abstraction for science. Wrong.

[electroBeam]

2 hours ago, PlayTheGame said:

 

@electroBeam You work with CO2 emission etc right, I bet you would love this video too. It's easy to get caught up in the voidness of science when science is actually a beautiful symbolic description of reality, that we can use to create a myriad of machines and structures. 

 

haha I'm glad you see that. I've always wanted science to head that way. Unfortunately the ship has sailed for me and science, I'm now onto things like sociology, politics and designing social systems.