Moderator: Flannel Jesus
Fixed Cross wrote:
What is the most fundamental question of science ?
WendyDarling wrote:Consciousness supersedes everything. It's nature is by far the most important question. Nothing matters without it. Without consciousness, there is no time, no matter, nothing.
Indeed, imagine a solipsist in the matrix finding out that her own consciousness is derived from the dreams of an entity derived from a computer simulation world.
WendyDarling wrote::lol:SCORE for Biggie! Burst out laughing on that one. Bravo...two points for the funny and an additional point for not being a completely irritating insect as per usual.
Biggie wroteIndeed, imagine a solipsist in the matrix finding out that her own consciousness is derived from the dreams of an entity derived from a computer simulation world.
A computer simulation built without consciousness makes no sense, Biggles. So we're back to consciousness and the retards who I must swat away in her.
FC wrote:What is the most fundamental question of science?
FC wrote:It should not be a humanities, meaning-based question such as why we exist. I don't think thats scientifically resolvable
iambiguous wrote:Pick one:
Magnus Anderson wrote:iambiguous wrote:Pick one:
I pick this one:
What is a humanities question today might turn out to be a science question tomorrow. Or to put it another way, science my catch up with the humanities - like it did, for example, on the issue of the consciousness, motivations and emotions of animals - in the future and confirm something known to many people in the humanities long before.Fixed Cross wrote:They say science is about asking questions. ("they" includes me but that doesn't make it a "we") So here's a question.
What is the most fundamental question of science?
It should not be a humanities, meaning-based question such as why we exist. I don't think thats scientifically resolvable, the question itself may be an error. It must be a technical question.
A few thoughts and possible fundamental questions:Still I do not think this is necessarily the most fundamental question of science. I feel it should be closer to home.
Karpel Tunnel wrote:Right off I am with Wendy that consciousness or I would prefer the existence of experience and experiencers, is a likely fundamental question. And this in no way need mean solipsism as Iamb with his metaphysics assumes.
Consciousness supersedes everything. It's nature is by far the most important question. Nothing matters without it. Without consciousness, there is no time, no matter, nothing.
Biguous wrote:As I read her, she is not saying that consciousness is a fundamental question, but that it supersedes all others:
Wendy wrote:It's nature is by far the most important question.
Without consciousness, there is no time, no matter, nothing.
Biguous wrote:Anyway, even in regard to this, Wendy is a staunch objectivist. She says consciousness supersedes everything and if you refuse to agree than you are a "retard".
Magnus Anderson wrote:Biguous wrote:As I read her, she is not saying that consciousness is a fundamental question, but that it supersedes all others:
It appears to me she said both.
Magnus Anderson wrote: She said consciousness is the most important question, but also, that without consciousness there is nothing.
...to my knowledge consciousness itself can only be attributed to the human species on planet Earth. And then only after billions of years of biological evolution. So something must have set that in motion going back to whatever set in motion the existence of existence itself. Unless, perhaps, even more ineffably, existence always existed.
How mindless matter morphed into mindful matter is a profound mystery. But that seemingly came about billions of years into what may well be only this Big Bang.
And, again, with Wendy, even in regard to questions this staggering, she has to project as the one with the only correct answer. For her consciousness becomes the fundamental question in the same way that Trump becomes the fundamental answer.
iambiguous wrote:It seems there are two questions that might be argued as fundamental above all others:
1] why does something exist instead of nothing?
2] why this something and not something else?
also, related to this is wondering if there was in fact the possibility of something else coming into existence instead
Human consciousness is merely one manifestation of the something that does exist. Although certainly one of the most mysterious facets of all.
Magnus Anderson wrote:Biguous wrote:Anyway, even in regard to this, Wendy is a staunch objectivist. She says consciousness supersedes everything and if you refuse to agree than you are a "retard".
It doesn't appear to me that she said that (i.e. that whoever disagrees with her on that particular issue, or any other issue, is a retard.)
And even if it's an opinion she does have, what's the problem?
surreptitious75 wrote:Is time an illusion ?
What is consciousness ?
Is the Universe infinite ?
Does the Multiverse exist ?
How did life originate on Earth ?
Is there life elsewhere in the Universe ?
Magnus wrote:How about "What are the set of laws that govern everything?"
Magnus Anderson wrote:The set of laws that govern everything refers to a formula that you can use to predict with 100% accuracy the state of the universe at some point in time based on the state of the universe at some other point in time.
Thus, if you knew everything about the present state of the universe and you had this formula, you'd be able to predict the state of the universe at any other point in time (past or future.)
That seems what a lot of people are after (since it's something that would give them a lot of power.)
But now, you're asking what's the cause of these laws. That means you want to predict the laws of the universe based on something else. Why would anyone want to do that?
Fixed Cross wrote:This would however only be possible in a purely Newtonean universe. What we know now from Quantum Mechanics disallows such a computation of the whole.
So we already know this is a hollow ambition.
[A] formula that you can use to predict with at least 90% accuracy the state of the universe at some point in time based on the state of the universe at some other point in time.
Fixed Cross wrote:Knowledge of what preceded the laws of our universe would give us a good indication of the coherence of the laws of our universe. It would reconcile QM with Relativity and such things. I.e. give us a higher formula in which these two disparate paradigms are integrated.
Fixed Cross wrote:iambiguous wrote:It seems there are two questions that might be argued as fundamental above all others:
1] why does something exist instead of nothing?
2] why this something and not something else?
also, related to this is wondering if there was in fact the possibility of something else coming into existence instead
Human consciousness is merely one manifestation of the something that does exist. Although certainly one of the most mysterious facets of all.
Yeah personally I agree that these are fundamental questions. Or foundational questions of philosophy.
If one were to answer these substantively then questions such as Magnus asks would also be resolved; the answer to "why this and not something else" would have to include some kind of justification of the natural laws we happen to live by.
Magnus Anderson wrote:Fixed Cross wrote:This would however only be possible in a purely Newtonean universe. What we know now from Quantum Mechanics disallows such a computation of the whole.
So we already know this is a hollow ambition.
How about this?[A] formula that you can use to predict with at least 90% accuracy the state of the universe at some point in time based on the state of the universe at some other point in time.
Does QM disallow such a computation?
Well, if you define the word "universe" as "the sum of all existence", then there is nothing that preceded the universe. (The universe is all there is.)
The laws of nature themselves merely describe the universe in simple terms -- as a relation between the state of the universe at one point in time and the state of the universe at the subsequent point in time. They are not something that exists at a single point in time such that you can ask "What preceded the laws of nature?"
Return to Science, Technology, and Math
Users browsing this forum: No registered users