Collecting Questions & Objections About The Limits Of Science

[UnbornTao]

What is the ultimate function of science? Is it to explain its invented distinctions?

What are its epistemological assumptions?

Will science ever get the Truth itself? What’s the relationship between direct experience and science? How does science reconcile direct consciousness of the truth of something?

Will science one day be able to transfer one’s awareness from one body or object to another, what does this say about awareness?

What is the ultimate form science will take? In other words, what are its limits?  

Except fact-based findings, is there something more science could offer in the future?

Science can’t explain reality, life, consciousness, the lack of empirical findings regarding the self, etc. Or it can only explain and talk about things, but not get the nature itself. Will it ever be able to?

 

[Fran11]

When you say the universe isn't mathematical, and that saying that is just a projection, I understand what you mean in the sense that math relies on man-made symbols and concepts that are not "out there". 

But doesn't math still point to actual qualities of the universe? 

Any word I put out there you may say it's an abstraction, and it is. But still, conceptualizations sometimes point to things you can find in actuallity.

For example isn't it true that everything that's limited exists in what we may call quantites? 

What counts as a unit of measure and the symbols we use are arbitrary, and we could deconstruct them all.

But in the relative sense, things do exist in what we may call quantities (all objects are not equally "large", or equally "heavy", etc.)

Those words themselves are concepts, but if you lift two objects, one with each hand, you will actually feel that one is more heavy than the other. You may call this difference whatever you want, or not label it at all, but it's still a real distinction within conciousness.

The same way red looks different from green prior to our linguistic labeling.

Edited October 16, 2020 by Fran11

[JosephKnecht]

1) Is Science invented or discovered?

If it is invented, for what purpose does the Inventor, invent it? Is it just to create a framework in which multiple minds can agree on a common understanding or reality?

If it is discovered, then why did the Inventor hid it from us so that we have to discover it again? 

(I know that from the biggest perspective, the distinction between invented and discovered collapses, but try to elaborate from a dual perspective)

2) Can Metaphysics as a branch of Science ever disprove Science? 

If science one-day collapses, what would cause the collapse? To disprove science to scientists, we must offer them proof. Where do you foresee this proof coming from? Metaphysics or something else?

(Keep in mind that when metaphysics disproves science, it is actually disproving itself)

3) The end of science is also the end of Objectivism. If Objectivity is gone how does One create objectivity in a completely subjective world? 

Science has created standards in material reality that we all abide by. A meter in Europe is also one meter in Australia. If there is no objective definition of what a meter is, how would I order my 1-meter tall Kangaroo without getting a 4-meter one?   

4) How can we use the limits of Science to show Scientists that to go beyond the limits of Science they must use something other than Science? 

When Science has progressed us into an advanced civilization, Scientists don't want to throw away the tool that allowed for the progress. Something else must promise bigger progress in order to be adopted on a mass scale. 

[How to be wise]

A possible objection: Science is based purely on observation of the real world. So, if you deny science, then you deny observation.

[Someone here]

 

How is science different from consciousness work or seeking truth directly?  

[4201]

Whenever you critique science you seem to be critiquing a way of misusing science rather than science itself, and then blaming "the scientists" for not seeing those limits.

Yet my personal experience with scientists and academics do not show that. There might be a dunning–kruger effect, where the ones that extrapolate scientific claims to justify ideologies are the ones that do not know much about science.

At the end of the day, science is just documentation of the limitations of the physical world. You previously said that "it's all illusions". Yet I fail to see how the fact you can't walk through brick walls is an illusion. Everything about the brick wall needs to be perceived and interpreted, yet this limitation that object can't pass through it doesn't go away no matter how you interpret the situation or even if you are aware of the wall or not.

[emptiness dancing]

How do we determine the limitations (or bullshitness) of  "spiritual" or post-rational ideas? personally? and  communally? Isn't this "science"?

[No Self]

How to bash science on the internet:

1) Go to device with nanoscale CPU that utilises quantum mechanics for manufacture and silicon semiconductor chemistry to function

2) Connect to A/C electricity as invented by Nikola Tesla

3) Switch on screen using light-emitting diode electroluminescence. 

4) Connect to vast computing infrastructure system called the internet using transceivers in the microwave part of the electromagnetic spectrum.

5) Talk about how science is full of shit. Success!

[Happy Lizard]

• why does science seem consistent ? I know it's not with the case of Light speed calculations showing that light has changed speed at some point in time. but why does it seem to me like it works at a high degree of accuracy and consistency over time ? we can make highly complex machines and highly robust objects like the international space station using calculations and concepts that works in practice. I understand that there is limits to how "good" it works but isn't that irrelevant since it's better than wishing a car would manifest out of nowhere ? 
• you say that languages spread almost like a living conscious thing, I find that intriguing, but does science do that as well ? 
• could there be a modern civilization without discovering science ? is discovering and using science a required/necessary step in conscious evolution or is it just an irrelevant  method ?
• what's an alternatives to science ? 

[RendHeaven]

Why is E = mc^2? Why not mc^3? There seem to be extremely specific measurements of the cosmos that reveal themselves time and time again.

How is this a limit of science? Are you telling me E could literally be something other than mc^2? Have you seen it NOT be mc^2 or are you just making that up?

If you retort, "well E and m and c and the process of squaring are all symbolic and arbitrary," I might still be unsatisfied because isn't it the case that these symbols are supposed to represent real empirical things such as mass? Even if I called mass by a different symbol, my skinny-140lbs-ass has undeniably less mass than an obese person.

And ultimately, even if you concede that these sciences are a "relative Truth," isn't that a sneaky way to dismiss a Truth nonetheless? Why can't we just say "this is True?"

Edited October 16, 2020 by RendHeaven

[andyjohnsonman]

will science and spirituality eventually merge? If so when and how

[Loving Radiance]

3 hours ago, LastThursday said:

Can we have a science that is non-material - instead of particles and fields, have consciousness as its base?

"my big Toe"

[UDT]

4 hours ago, Hawkins said:

Simplistic example: Direct experience tells me the earth is flat, with science on the other hand I can build a good case that the Earth is round. 

You put a lot of importance on direct experience, how come science is the better method for truth seeking in this example?

When you stand at the beach on sunrise/sunset, your direct experience will show you the curve of the earth. 

[ajai]

Yes the upcoming series will be juicy and will catch eyes of a lot and will also make the chairs of many tremble.

"The Limits of Science" sounds so cool huh.

But how naive would it be to consider the works in Science as if something that's already done and that there's no scope of improvement further in this work. Science says nothing but the method lies on the foundation that without empirical evidence nothing can be labelled as "True" or something that exist or don't exist in reality. In a way it's Consciousness work as well, Scientists are also expanding there consciousness as every decade pass, athough imo there's no substantial work in science since Einstein's relativity but it doesn't mean that the work has stopped, and that Scientists are misleading us in some way or they have started to use science as a Religion(maybe some are) and that Science is a new cult (for them who say this they don't know what cult means or how it works). But I'd ask where on earth you won't find cult, it's everywhere if there are humans there's cult in some way or another because majority is not so good at understanding things, so where there's a lack of understanding you will find something wrong or dysfunctional going on, and that dysfunctionality shouldn't be considered as something evil or bad, for becoming more n more conscious it's sooo necessary, if there was no dysfunctionality how in the world you'd know what's functional, and to deconstruct Science I don't get it, because deconstruction could be done to something physical or something that can be brokendown into pieces, why does it only have to be Science and let alone 'all' of Science, How many Sciences are there? is it singular plural or what? I don't know.

I don't want to see this blame game and saving my team sort of mentality where the so-called "Spiritual" workers going against "Science" workers and vice-versa. For me both, both methods are part of CONSCIOUSNESS and hence any investigative method can be used for becoming more Conscious because they are nothing but the Same, I can give Science the name "SPIRITUALITY" and spirituality as "SCIENCE" in my own domain it doesn't matter, because they are all the same in a sense each integrates itself and the other, they look different because of our own perspectives and paradigm locks, for those who are stuck in their own pardaigm lock don't you dare to think that you know everything about every domain like Science, Social Science, Literature or whatever you don't, and even though you know each one of them but still you don't because you only know that from what others have taught, thought or from their works, what is your own contribution? how n why did any of you stumble upon Actualized.org or any other resource of great Consciousness work, wht were the factors involved, they were so many that you yourself don't know, and even then when we talk about Science and Theory of Relativity how many of us know about Relativity completely and how it works, we should be grateful that there was someone like Einstein who gave us this lense to see Reality and made all other contemporary scientist baffled with his work, for those other scientists they were too sure about the "surety" of their work that THIS IS IT! we got it, but no time n time again people like Einstein have proved that there's so much that is yet unknown, and that for an individual being it's impossible in his lifetime to know it all it never happened and will never happen in future either, for every great discovery there's another profound one waiting for which the current one lays the foundation and shows us the path where to go, Einstein wasn't born in 1 A.D. (Jesus did) he was born in 1879 A.D. so years n years n years of work led to the great discovery of our beloved Theory of Relativity ( used OUR on purpose ) ,

So the need here is to ask questions that are out of the box, think intensively before you write any question don't ask the already asked stupid questions ( I can't because I consider myself noob in Science ) , that asking should reflect how much you know about science, because I consider it serious given the work style and how it is with Scientific Investigation literally.

I would say this assertively, THERE'S NO LIMITS TO SCIENCE, and to say that there is you have to say all of that LIMITED that's there in your cognition and even if it's something that you experience under psychedelics influence because some consider it "radical" and "profound" and for them "some" it also is and very crucial facet to undergo I get that.

There could be advances in Sciences tomorrow that will make even the most advanced "Spiritual" masters of today (dark ages) scared to death, so watch out, it's all about growing those who will not grow will be left out and will become redundant no matter what label they put, labels have nothing to do with CONSCIOUSNESS or what is TRUTH.

I forgot to mention even the substances like LSD were the product of this investigative method called as "Science" so just see if you scapegoat the whole discipline and ridicule it to death because it's not a scrupture that is already build yet and it will never build completely, it's one brick on top of another till infinity. It's the limit of your understanding of SCIENCE that's making it limited.

P.S. My current understanding is a matter of subject to change in future.

Edited October 16, 2020 by ajai

[RendHeaven]

Just now, UDT said:

When you stand at the beach on sunrise/sunset, your direct experience will show you the curve of the earth. 

Even more fundamentally: Direct experience will tell you nothing about flattened vs curved, this dichotomy is an interpretation that disguises itself as "direct experience"

[UDT]

1 hour ago, No Self said:

How to bash science on the internet:

1) Go to device with nanoscale CPU that utilises quantum mechanics for manufacture and silicon semiconductor chemistry to function

2) Connect to A/C electricity as invented by Nikola Tesla

3) Switch on screen using light-emitting diode electroluminescence. 

4) Connect to vast computing infrastructure system called the internet using transceivers in the microwave part of the electromagnetic spectrum.

5) Talk about how science is full of shit. Success!

 hahahaha 

[Carl-Richard]

You criticize the brain a lot and like to point out things that it's not responsible for (like causing the existence of consciousness). However, what is the brain actually responsible for?

Edited October 16, 2020 by Carl-Richard

[RichnNL]

Are you saying science in its modern form is just limited or it will always be

I think modern science is simply extremely limited. You cannot put everything into numbers but maybe one day sounds kind of scifi but there could be some super computer that could actually understand reality that is possible right?

[Superfluo]

@Leo Gura

Oh I see, so things happen without a prior cause. The lack of prior cause needed is the cause for Being. Is that what you're saying?

[ColeMC01]

@Leo Gura   I dont know if it is a valid question but i am curious. Is the concept of science itself a human construct, projection. I am not talking about science as a objective material way of doing it. But, can we actually even use science, in any way (doesnt matter) to go towards the ultiamte truth