Thread: What are your favourite simple things that science just cannot explain?

I don't know. Anything which is mysterious to us today shall one day be explained, refuted or supported by science in the future. There is possibly one great mystery at the core of it all, one that we are too stupid to understand, but right now I do not believe we are close to that, if it even exists. I can't really think of anything that is not already, or will not be in future, explained by science.

There are things which we cannot explain currently, but no things which science cannot explain. Science is the mystery of the world.

Originally Posted by Savy

There are things which we cannot explain currently, but no things which science cannot explain.

At the risk of repeating myself, this is a baseless assertion that you cannot possibly know for sure about. Technically speaking, science doesn't really explain anything (as has also been previously stated) but even taken in the loose way that this thread is using it, science 'explains' the physical world through empirical experimentation. Are you claiming to know for sure that nothing exists that cannot be explained through empirical study of the physical world?

Science is the way the world works. It's not even accurate to call it an "explanation", actually. "Explanation" implies that we are making up things to explain the way the world works. Actually, the world already has a set way it works and we are simply discovering what those ways are. So, yes, I think that things that are currently unexplained to us actually do have explanations that we just are not yet aware of, and that one day we will come to understand if we continue on our current course of progression.

Originally Posted by Savy

Science is the way the world works. It's not even accurate to call it an "explanation", actually. "Explanation" implies that we are making up things to explain the way the world works. Actually, the world already has a set way it works and we are simply discovering what those ways are. So, yes, I think that things that are currently unexplained to us actually do have explanations that we just are not yet aware of, and that one day we will come to understand if we continue on our current course of progression.

I believe I know what you are saying, and I do agree to some extent.
However... (you knew that was coming)
It is quite possible that OUR scientific ability may not ever explain everything. We are, after all, three dimensional minds in an indefinitely dimensional universe. Even when we think we know, we never will.
Yes, seems to be a set way that things are, but there are also an infinite number of perspectives on each aspect of that set. It would take paragraphs to fully explain, but holograms are a good example. What is a hologram?
Is it a three dimensional image, or is it a two dimensional print of interference patterns?
Yes.

Well, I agree. I'm not disagreeing with you at all.

In fact, I do think there is a point where the human mind can no longer comprehend the way the world works. But just because we cannot comprehend the way something works does not mean it doesn't have a way that it works. Because our brains are finite, limited by bodily restrictions, there is no possible way for us to understand everything in the universe. In my first post I reference a core mystery. What I mean by that is the point at which we can understand no further. If we were infallible beings, though, we could understand that, too. Because everything has a way by which it works.

Originally Posted by Savy

Science is the way the world works. It's not even accurate to call it an "explanation", actually. "Explanation" implies that we are making up things to explain the way the world works. Actually, the world already has a set way it works and we are simply discovering what those ways are. So, yes, I think that things that are currently unexplained to us actually do have explanations that we just are not yet aware of, and that one day we will come to understand if we continue on our current course of progression.

Science is not the way the world works. Science is a technique whose job is to prove how the world works. A religious person could substitute the words "The Bible". The way the world works is just the way that the world works. Science is one method to discover how it works and prove it. And there are many possible explanations of a phenomenon and science is just a material explanation. But I do not argue that the circumference of our knowledge can grow indefinitely.

Science is not only defined as a technique. It's also defined as "a particular branch of knowledge", "systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation", or "systematized knowledge in general" and those are just a couple definitions. Science is our knowledge of the truth of the way the world works. It is the truth, so far as we are aware, and all evidence says that we are correct. It's not just a method, and it's not just numbers and formulas. Science can also be soft, as in economics and psychology. It describes and analyses everything in our world, even our own actions, even our own emotions. Science is the way we work, the way the world works.

Originally Posted by Savy

Science is not only defined as a technique. It's also defined as "a particular branch of knowledge", "systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation", or "systematized knowledge in general" and those are just a couple definitions. Science is our knowledge of the truth of the way the world works. It is the truth, so far as we are aware, and all evidence says that we are correct. It's not just a method, and it's not just numbers and formulas. Science can also be soft, as in economics and psychology. It describes and analyses everything in our world, even our own actions, even our own emotions. Science is the way we work, the way the world works.

I have never been particularly bright. For me, the way to look at an arguement, is to see if the argument itself rests upon valid grounds. I look at science, religion, common discourse, all as having the same foundation. Now, imagine this, imagine that we can actually use the concept A = A. We can even speak it, A thing is not different from itself. Now, that was not so hard, yet most actually find it impossible. And others even hard to use.

Now, is language a thing? Or, is language nothing? Is langauge different from language? No.
Is one language used to describe one reality, but another a different reality? No.

When someone says that Science describes . . . . etc. They are making two mistakes. 1 it is an anthropomorphism, 2 langauge is used to describe--the same langauge set used no matter where you stand or what you claim to be.

Language does not contradict language. One language does not contradict another.

All mistakes, all misues, does not rest with the tool, because the first principles really are as simple as things get,

All mistakes rest with man, particular and general.

Don't know which Geometry is either correct or the most correct? Not the fault of geometry, its because man don't know the first principles of grammar to begin with. Geometry is just another language.

I find it unbelievable the amount of discourse today, or anyday, that tries to solve a problem by looking in the wrong direction. Like trying to shoot a gun with your head screwed on backwards.

I disagree with everything again!

Originally Posted by sloth

I disagree with everything again!

That is why I put that statement about not being bright in there. I knew I could get a compliment out of you some way.

Oh, hi. You again.

It's not an anthropomorphism. In fact, it is correct in the English language to say "Science describes..." because science here refers to the term "science". It is simply a grammatical shortening of "The word science is a description of ... " Whereas the second sounds dry, even awkward, the first is more active. The first is also clearer. More people will understand what you mean by the first phrasing than by the second, and being clear is possibly the most important part of speaking. Either way, Both are correct. Language describes, yes, and here I am referring to the word science, which if I'm not mistaken is a part of language. Also, language isn't the only thing that describes. But that's not what this discussion is about.

Originally Posted by Savy

Oh, hi. You again.

It's not an anthropomorphism. In fact, it is correct in the English language to say "Science describes..." because science here refers to the term "science". It is simply a grammatical shortening of "The word science is a description of ... " Whereas the second sounds dry, even awkward, the first is more active. The first is also clearer. More people will understand what you mean by the first phrasing than by the second, and being clear is possibly the most important part of speaking. Either way, Both are correct. Language describes, yes, and here I am referring to the word science, which if I'm not mistaken is a part of language. Also, language isn't the only thing that describes. But that's not what this discussion is about.

You just compounded the error, now you have science, which is tacitly plural, being in the singular.

To me science are methods by which we encode information about our environment into language systems. It then becomes absurd when it is demonstrable that the foundation of language is not even known.

Except that the word science is a singular noun, and you're abusing the English language to suit your needs. I've made no mistake, I just try to stick to the known rules of English grammar.
"Science are methods" is actually the incorrect bit.

Originally Posted by Savy

Except that the word science is a singular noun, and you're abusing the English language to suit your needs. I've made no mistake, I just try to stick to the known rules of English grammar.
"Science are methods" is actually the incorrect bit.

I see you don't believe in noun verb agreement. Okay, is there really only one method? No matter.

I concede. However, it was an anthropomorphism.

'Kay.

You're the only person I know who can concede and continue to argue at the same time.

Originally Posted by Savy

'Kay.

You're the only person I know who can concede and continue to argue at the same time.

You only brought up a point about mass nouns that is not even settled in grammar books, why fight it? It is still a burp in the EL.

Originally Posted by Savy

Science is the way the world works. It's not even accurate to call it an "explanation", actually. "Explanation" implies that we are making up things to explain the way the world works. Actually, the world already has a set way it works and we are simply discovering what those ways are. So, yes, I think that things that are currently unexplained to us actually do have explanations that we just are not yet aware of, and that one day we will come to understand if we continue on our current course of progression.

Your opinion has already been refuted by a much greater mind than mine;

"Physical concepts are free creations of the human mind,
and are not, however it may seem, uniquely determined by
the external world. In our endeavor to understand reality
we are somewhat like a man trying to understand the
mechanism of a closed watch. He sees the face and the
moving hands, even hears its ticking, but he has no way of
opening the case. If he is ingenious he may form some
picture of a mechanism which could be responsible for all
the things he observes, but he may never be quite sure his
picture is the only one which could explain his observations.
He will never be able to compare his picture with the real
mechanism and he cannot even imagine the possibility of
the meaning of such a comparison."
--ALBERT EINSTEIN, 1938

Science can prove everything of what can be observed in some way, there's much an average non scientist doesn't have the knowledge of, which is the purpose of this question.
With exceptions that not all religions can be properly proved by science.

Originally Posted by LxANN

Science can prove everything of what can be observed in some way, there's much an average non scientist doesn't have the knowledge of, which is the purpose of this question.
With exceptions that not all religions can be properly proved by science.

I would have imagined that you were one to keep, and prove your own words. Apparently it was my mistake.

Originally Posted by Philosopher8659

I would have imagined that you were one to keep, and prove your own words. Apparently it was my mistake.

And what words do you believe are not proven in my post?

Magnets. HOW DO THEY WORK!?!??!

Originally Posted by Philosopher8659

I would have imagined that you were one to keep, and prove your own words. Apparently it was my mistake.

Explain to me exactly what you're attempting to do here, as it says in your signature. I want to understand why you must share with everyone the principles of grammar, I would personally like to comprehend if you can word it well enough for my understanding, and I shall learn to feed off of it. I do, in a way, have abundant respect for your effort in your dedicated beliefs of your "non-invasive psycho-therapy".

Originally Posted by LxANN

Explain to me exactly what you're attempting to do here, as it says in your signature. I want to understand why you must share with everyone the principles of grammar, I would personally like to comprehend if you can word it well enough for my understanding, and I shall learn to feed off of it. I do, in a way, have abundant respect for your effort in your dedicated beliefs of your "non-invasive psycho-therapy".

Oh you disappointed him! He is not even talking about grammar, although he thinks he is. He is talking about some philosophical position based on language, where the way we think is dependent on our language. This is true to an extant, but not ultimately true. Not all of our thoughts are based on words or concepts. And the deeper our thoughts are, the more language has to be flexible to convey the truth of what we are saying. we may even have to make up new words or expand the definition of existing words as our ideas evolve. That is not the same thing as grammar. Your grammar is fine, we understand you. But he is disappointed because the way you talk proves that you haven't studied Plato and Aristotle, which he values so immensely. He actually hoped that you also valued Plato and Aristotle as much as he does. Perhaps. He doesn't really make any sense, which goes far in saying how his grammar is. But even if he DOES try to explain what he is talking about, you wouldn't know it, because you would need him to explain his explanation because unfortunately it will be just as confusing and incoherent as his first statement.

Edit: you obviously didn't keep your word of Studying Plato, Socrates, and Euclid. You didn't keep your word by and you proved it by not talking like Phil.

Well Im working on reading Plato currently because Philospher8659 has backed me into a corner, he should be happy about that

LxANN- Don't worry you are fine, you're not doing anything wrong. But do study Plato and Aristotle. Welcome to Dreamviews, please enjoy your stay.