Modern Science And The Establishment Clause.

Of course it doesn't, because who created the creator. Therein lies the paradox. Sometimes knowledge doesn't quite work in the way it's supposed to.

Tell me this, what is the ultimate purpose of science. Is it possible there may be no answers to some questions.

Something must have created the universe, but who created the creator. Time must have a beginning, but how could time have always have existed. Same thing about space.

Science as you think you know it will never answer these questions. Nothing will answer these questions.

 

complex numbers? mathematics?

who "designed" the mandelbrot set?

on another note, who "designed" the limit of the difference quotient as delta x tends to zero to be the first derivative of the function? Surely it wasn't Newton!

"the ultimate ratio of evanescent quantities is to be understood as the ration of the quantities, not before they vanish, nor after they vanish, but when they vanish"
-- Sir Isaac Newton

 

Ah yes. The original and wholly comprehensive treatise on the origin of life based on Newtonian calculations

 

I actually don't see either of these things happening. The religious right still has enormous influence in political matters but America as a whole is becoming increasingly secular. Today's acceptance of LGBT people is a good example of how the country's attitudes are shifting.

A poll by the Pew Research Center confirms the changing beliefs of the general public.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/11/11/religious-nones-are-not-only-growing-theyre-becoming-more-secular/

Of course, the pendulum could always swing the other way someday, but for now I'd say we're safe.

 

Did I say science has no value? Science that closes it's eyes to spiritual or religious wisdom has no value, perhaps.

I think Nagarjuna is pointing out the inescapable paradoxes that arise through our minds trying to find logic in our existence. The concept of the universe ultimately being created by something makes about as much sense as the current scientific consensus that holds to the idea that the universe just came into being by chance. The idea that ultimately we can never understand the universe, and the more we try the less we understand is central to buddhist philosophy. The more we know, the less we know. This observation is becoming more and more apparent through recent discoveries in physics, and sub-atomic physics is uncovering patterns not too dissimilar to the 6-fold symmetry that many ancient spiritual texts have written about.

Science doesn't really understand what consciousness is, any more than it did centuries ago. But contemporary advances in science have offered something of a clue to at least what life is, based on the discovery of Ilya Prigogine whom I already mentioned, and the existence of self-regulating, complex systemic networks of patterns that exist on the edge between order and chaos.

If intelligent design has no scientific value then how do you explain the fern leaf? The simple mathematical algorithm which gives rise to the fern, and when repeatedly run on computer systems produces the same image, but every time differently, just as nature produces the same patterns over and over again, yet no patterns that share a common structure will ever be the same. It is very much as though the patterns of life that make up the universe, and indeed perhaps the entire universe are all contained within and emergent from simple mathematical algorithms. That's what intelligent design means to me.

If you can't understand that without feeling at least some affinity with spiritual consciousness then you're not really getting it.

 

I didn't mention physics in the post you meant to quote. You made that assumption, assumedly based on the common recognition of Isaac Newton for Newtonian physics. All I was alluding to was Newton's introduction of concepts to mathematics, such as a limit, and his description thereof, which I quoted.

Newton wrote the "Principia Mathematica" at a time when there were no "Calculus pocket reference" type books. Do note that in this respect, it's coincidental that whom it was that gave the description of the concept happened to also have applied this same concept to physics; e.g. if the velocity of an object with respect to time can be said to be the value of a quadratic function of time v(t), then the instantaneous acceleration at some 't' can be said to be the rate (ratio) of change of the function with respect to 't', i.e A(t) = d(v)/dt.

In other words, "the slope of a point on a curve", which, algebraically, seems impossible if slope is taken to be the rate of change of a function with respect to an independent variable, e.g. the average rate of change over a period of time t0 - t1 where t1 = t0 + Δt.

If delta t tends toward t, at some point (no pun intended) delta t becomes irrelevant and they are the same t. It no longer matters if delta t ever had a finite value. Replace the word evanescent with vanishing if you prefer, as this is what that word means, and what is being described. I know that people used strange English in the 17th century.

The solution to this problem in mathematics can be used to solve problems in physics where mathematically this is relevant, such that, it's irrelevant concerning the relationship between the initial realization of the mathematical concepts used and their applications.

Yes, the above is five paragraphs (this one not inclusive), for clarity, or to put it another way, good measure. Feel free to scrutinize my imperfect notation and grammar as well to venture off the topic of your thesis here, which seems to differ from your current argument a bit. I'm not writing a formal article, though I did feel it may be relevant to dispose of any perceived ambiguity in my very informal post that you made reference to earlier.

 

Sorry, but you kind of did mention physics. Maths is the language of physics and Newton used calculus to describe natural phenomenon. In any case, I'm not sure where I specifically accused you of talking about physics, however if I insuated such a thing then so what? The point is... Newtonian mathematics, physics and the general paradigm which science emerged into for the following 300 years was ultimately founded on Newtonian principles. I'm not saying those principles were wrong, just limited in their capacity to explain what life and consciousness is, a point which I consider to be relevant to the discussion? I'm not venturing off topic, or attacking your grammar. I'm responding to your comment about Newton, with another comment. I'm not really sure what you were getting at anyway, and perhaps the point I was getting at was missed. I think I have elaborated more clarity into that in subsequent chapters of my "thesis"

 

O RLY? Because I thought auto mechanics was at the core of holistic science and the parallels between science and religion. Thanks for enljightening me.

You really are completely failing to grasp what I'm getting at here.

But hey, so is pretty much the majority of scientists who follow the purely mechanistic dogma, and think it's the only form of logic they can use to understand the universe.

Carry on "howling with the wolves" for all I care. The universe can be a far more wonderous place if you just open your mind and let it.

 

Car mecha

Car mechanics doesn't need to open it's mind to spiritual interpretations, because it's car mechanics. It's basic, Newtonian clockwork physics.

That said, there may be something about it that shares an affinity with spiritualism, I don't know. I know plenty of guys who are quite passionate about it.

Who's getting upset?

It's a complex philosophical mindset that approaches science from a different perspective, and a different paradigm. You might find that modern, advanced physics at is deepest ontological level is more open minded towards the idea of creationism, or at least a new interpretation of what that means.

 

In your opinion.

If I, or anyone else want to consider it science, then it's science.

 

Except for trees and most plants, don't you think this intelligent desgin, as you call it, is a bit on the sadistic side....things eating other living things?

 

http://youtu.be/jMiY_ekrPSk

 

Gotta point there.

 

What gives them value? The human being. And is the human being valuable because he/she is spiritual? No one knows.

It's easy enough to doubt whether, objectively, anything has any value at all. Do any of our actions have an enduring effect on anything, or are we just temporary arrangements of atoms trying to disperse energy?

 

Lifeforms are complex dissipative structures that are best understood as a process, rather than molecules interacting. The theory of Entropy explains everything in the universe apart from life, the self-generating, emergent networks of organisms are designed such as to harness a flow of energy through them. If normal physics were at play the system would become chaotic and break down, however the autopoietic structures that form the basis of all organismic structures prevent this breakdown and harness the energy and use it to sustain life, and consciousness. What energy? Reiki, I think. That's my theory anyway. This is where science and spirituality, chakras meet.