Why do we automatically assume that our physical and mathematical models and reasoning can ultimately ....?

Question

..... lead us to a comprehensive understanding of the Universe?

Specially, when our efforts are beleaguered by a total absence of experimental observations and theoretical predictions! Also, why are we assuming that the final description of “THE UNIVERSE” is (or even should be) ultimately free of any ambiguities, formally undecidable propositions and/or anomalies???

Gemelli2 - LOL LOL LOL

Thank you for your invaluable contribution to this forum.

Frankly, you seem to be the prefect example of what I was talking about here (i.e. the arrogant mediocrity that's currently plaguing our scientific community).

Talk about a prime example of "GIGO" and an invalid a priori assumption. Just listen to your own pompous and presumptuous statement (actually, and in your own words, jejune verbage, is more like it, since you weren’t even able to form a single coherent sentence in English!):

***"More degrees in math and physics than you have"***

If that’s not an a priori assumption, I am NOT sure what is! LOL LOL LOL


However, and at the danger of sounding just as “Gemelli2” as you, let me make the following a priori assumption: It is quite evident that your scattered and self-absorbed noodles weren’t even capable of comprehending the true spirit of the question.

And judging by your lackluster performance here, I would venture to say my dog understands more logic than you do. So, put all your so-called “degrees” in a plastic bag and sell them back to the same third-rate institution (most likely NOT an American one) that peddled them to you in the first place. As for my degrees – let's put it this way, I don’t want to make you piss your pants with envy!

Answer 1

No no no the real question is whether the mathematics exists fundamentally (and is therefore a sound basis for our observations), or did we invent the math as we went along, in order to make it fit our observations.

Answer 2

The nature of the intelligent design (ID) idea can be understood by analyzing the structure of their argument, without being distracted by all the details. It is:

1. There are problems with the theory of evolution.

2. Therefore God exists.

ID is therefore seen NOT as a scientific theory, but rather as an argument for the existence of God, in the same spirit as the arguments for the existence of God proposed by certain medieval philosophers and theologians. ID is just as fallacious; one can prove a mathematical theorem, but proofs of the existence of God are not possible.

Every scientific theory has problems; it is not the way of science to throw up our hands in the face of problems and say, “OK. I give up. God must be the only explanation.” The scientific approach is to analyze as clearly as possible what the problems are, and then to either revise the theory or construct a new one that is better.

As argued by many people, both on this site and elsewhere, there is a clear difference between ID and string theory. The former clearly has no chance to ever be science, whereas although the latter is not yet a scientific theory, its proponents are striving to construct what one day might become a scientific theory. That is, a theory that makes specific predictions that can be confronted with observational or experimental data.

YOU should read it some time!

Answer 3

Well, you're assuming that everyone accepts the physical and mathematical models/reasoning, which is a pretty big assumption!

Logic and reasoning are the basis for intelligence in the first place. I think that there will probably always be things that aren't explainable, but if it's observable, it's part of science and can be deemed a fact for the most part.

I wouldn't at all agree that everyone believe that everyone accepts them, and those that do are probably in a better position to make those assumptions anyways.

Answer 4

"We " do not....that is to say...mathematicians, astrophysicists, scientists [in general] ...as a group, we do not make the assumptions that you claim. Also, the phrase : "total absence of experimental observations and theoretical predictions"...simply not true....
As Newton said....standing on the shoulders of giants allowed him to see farther...that is all we are doing today...trying to get a better understanding of the universe.."warts" and all
Ambiguities, anomalies, undecidable propositions???
meaningless, specious, argumentative , inane, jejune verbage

Nota Bene: Invalild a priori assumptions lead invalid conclusions
or
your question/statement is a prime example of "GIGO"

Answer 5

No one but the stupid people that say GOD WOULDN'T HAVE MADE THE UNIVERSE IN A WAY WE COULDN'T EVENTUALLY FIGURE OUT think that the universe was set up in a way that our faculties could adequately comprehend the substance behind it. Epistemologically speaking, it could be said we know nothing still. However, I don't believe that the universe contains any "anomalies"... That would be an effect happening without a distict cause, which is just rather rediculous....

Answer 6

WE don't assume anything. you might. your fellow wizards might. i, on the other hand, live with the assumption of uncertainty in all things, most especially mathematical models and universal questions. i embrace the questioning and question the answers.

Answer 7

I don't know, but we had better wake up and realize that the only real answers to the universe are found inside ourselves and not outside, huh?

Answer 8

Because its al we have to base our, so called, understanding off of.