Back
Forum Replies Created
-
Any individual can and should follow any path that triggers their imagination – and market their evidence for their beliefs/theories. Others might choose to stay within the confines of the establishment and also extol the virtues of their particular belief system, finding security in numbers. For those others – we can equally choose to withhold judgement unless and until there is a body of evidence that we find sufficiently convincing. Bigger theories should provide a us with a bigger body of evidence.
Descartes was a precise philosopher and his principle (though unproven) still holds good. As does Darwinian evolution – life evolved from the simplicity of microbial structures to the complexity (and cul de sac specialisation) of an Orchid, a Human, or a Blue Whale (consider the: Dodo, Mamoth or T Rex). Under the stress of change it is the complex that will face extinction and the Microbes will probably inherit the Earth. William of Ockham’s ‘Razor’ is still sharp! Also, we do have eternity to play with 🙂
If a conjecture regarding reality cannot be tested to prove or disprove its validity, then it currently positions itself as being not worthy of extensive rational discussion. That does not prevent ongoing examination by theorists, and for the proponents of any particular ‘theory’ to defend their pet idea – it is simply that any further discussion at this time is logically pointless – it is just becomes a marketing exercise to attract further advocates in support of an unprovable hypothesis.
I am revisiting this course for a third time to try to embed the core concepts more firmly in my mind. I am in a similar position to Mr Talbot (but probably considerably older), and find the mathematical proofs and derivations very compelling. As for the final aspect of the initial question – learning that neuroscience teaches us that our perceptions are filtered not just by exposure to a limited spectrum, but also by a brain that has evolved to protect us from the dangers of exposure to reality, is not strange, but nevertheless very fascinating }:‑)
If it were possible to stand outside of the universe, we could presumably observe its expansion, contraction and oscilation; even determine an origin and centre. But being entangled within it I guess that we, our measuring instruments, and all of the material universe around us would be subject to the same distortions, and thus make objective observation impossible.
As Ruth Bingham wrote over a year ago – smarter thinking and improved technolgy can combine to give us a sharper insight, that can improve upon our previous understanding.
With better tools we might be able to do a better job – or perhaps we are the weak link!
Consider: only 10% of the cells in our (human) bodies are actually human, and those few (human) cells contain DNA that is is 50% identical to that of a banana… If the warping of spacetime that gives rise to gravity is a function of density – mass/volume, then as a star collapses towards a singularity its density must accelerate towards infinity. A singularity with infinte density is surely the domain of quantum mechanics – and the gravitational effect of such a region would become a major player. Just as the weak interaction of two distant magnets becomes a dominant factor when they occupy the same neighbourhood.