IMO Science is about refinement of our pre-occupation with prediction and control. The problem is that our definitions of necessary and sufficient conditions for "an event" to occur are 1. based on at least one assumed axiom (Godel) and 2 may have unforseen consequences as yet unquantified (global warming for example) which devalue the presumed "success" of our control program. In short "cause" and "effect" are both logically open sets (i.e. "event windows") even if we seek to close them for economy of understanding.
This personal opinion is backed by Hume's celebrated philosophical deconstruction of causality (An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding) and the time symmetries of modern physics which are antithetical to directional sequences in time.
Now it may be the case that what we call "understanding" and "explanation" are so heavily steeped in "causality" that no transcendent alternative can be offered. It boils down to an argument about whether we think causality is merely an anthropocentrically useful concept, or whether we think "causal mechanisms" are independent of the human observers which evoke them,
since questioning is ostensibly a "linguistic activity" it seems likely that language plays a significant role in segmentation of what we call "the world".
metalanguage of mathematics together with its idiosyncratic forms of "coherence" which can transcend normal understanding.
A limit to understanding ?
Put crudely, the Big Bang model implies that all of what we conceive of as material, energy, and even space-time suddenly appeared in what we measure as about 13 billion years ago.
Irrespective of the status of Big Bang as an accepted model
does my emphasis of the words about what appears to us suggest anything more than
we should be cautious in accepting any scientific paradigm such as Big Bang as being more than temporally useful
in what we call “our understanding”?
I doubt that very much
Do you remember where you read it?
I don't know where you get this stuff Dale. Do you even know? Which sharp people said that?
Only know what I read somewhere
3. Calculations by Brandon Carter show that if gravity had been stronger or weaker by 1 part in 10 to the 40th power, then life-sustaining stars like the sun could not exist. This would most likely make life impossible. (Davies, 1984, p. 242.)
we reports "a value of G = 6.693 × 10−11 cubic meters per kilogram second squared, with a standard error of the mean of ±0.027 × 10−11 and a systematic error of ±0.021 × 10−11 cubic meters per kilogram second squared."
All of the evidence points to the fact that universe is expanding and therefore had a beginning.
Quote:You don't even bother to read the content of one of the sites that come up.
Despite the headlines, the majority of the posters of this site don't think the human brain is the most complex object of the universe.
Oops my most abject apologies, I was off two-tenths of one percent
... However, it might be pertinent that some pretty sharp folk consider the humanoid the most complex object in the Universe...
Quote:I don't know where you get this stuff Dale. Do you even know? Which sharp people said that?
So there is no support for your assertion that humans hold a special place in the universe based on brain complexity.