> On 29 Oct 2019, at 18:50, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On 10/29/2019 3:36 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >>> On 28 Oct 2019, at 19:36, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List >>> <[email protected] >>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On 10/28/2019 4:34 AM, John Clark wrote: >>>> On Mon, Oct 28, 2019 at 4:16 AM Philip Thrift <[email protected] >>>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>>> >>>> > We don't even know yet what gravity is. >>>> >>>> I think General Relativity gives us a better fundamental understanding of >>>> what gravity is than we have for understanding what electromagnetism is, >>>> all Einstein starts with is the existence of movement, that is spacetime, >>>> and mass. Electromagnetism needs all that too but also needs to assume the >>>> existence of something called "electrical charge". >>>> >>>> > "we could be leaving an age of analysis to enter an age of synthesis. We >>>> > may be synthesizing things (materials science, synthetic biology, >>>> > nanotechnology) that we cannot analyze (explain why they work)." >>>> >>>> Science can tell us how things work, but as for why...... logically the >>>> chain of why questions either goes on forever or it doesn't and ends in a >>>> brute fact, after that there is no why, that's just the way things are. >>>> >>>> John K Clark >>> >>> The sciences do not try to explain, they hardly even try to interpret, >>> they mainly make models. By a model is meant a mathematical construct >>> which, with the addition of certain verbal interpretations, describes >>> observed phenomena. The justification of such a mathematical construct is >>> solely and precisely that it is expected to work. >>> --—John von Neumann >> >> >> Science has stopped to seek the “why” since the “why” has been stolen by >> criminals. Be it through the stealing of theology, like 1500 years ago, or >> by the stealing of the health politics, like about 100 years ago. >> >> We can handle the why, once we accept o abandon the search of “certainty” >> (which, with mechanism, is close to insanity). > > Religion starts by telling us "why". Lets see the making is work part first.
I would say that religion starts from the semantic or the intuition, and then we make a theory trying to get that semantic, but it can never succeed completely, so science do exploration, and has to correct its view again and again. Religion is the (only) goal. Science is the (only) mean. Both science and religion can become perverted when mixed with a tyranny or with other roots of argument by authority, and dogma. Religion is the belief in (some) Truth. (Fundamental) Science is the research of that Truth. Mechanism + Tarski implies that such a fundamental truth cannot be defined, which is useful in the theory of consciousness (which cannot be defined either, except by reference toward such a Truth). Bruno > > Brent > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/85090a54-242d-a840-1900-fa562291746d%40verizon.net > > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/85090a54-242d-a840-1900-fa562291746d%40verizon.net?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/95C33B87-9FAF-4470-A862-E29F230FA92A%40ulb.ac.be.
