georgeob1 wrote:I suspect you and I have different conceptions of mankind's intellectual progress over the last few millenia.
I did not intend to impute intellectual progress (or lack thereof) over the last few millenia was in any way germane to my perspective that:
1) the potentials of future science are infinite and unknown
2) science is in it's most basic infancy at this point in time
3) judgment of the potential of science, and perhaps even more to the point, what science might become, is vastly premature
For the record: I'll be damned if I know how much intellectual progress over the last few millenia man has made, if we exempt all the external artifices such as libraries and other fancy constructs and look only at the average world man. If we include all the external artifices then I would be willing to say man collectively has made substantive intellectual progress, even if the average world man has not.
BTW that in essence is one of the beauties of science, as the body of scientific work can stand, even if average world man does not.
georgeob1 wrote:I believe the many problems "solved" by science constitute a collection of relatively simple deductions and obsrervations, compared to even the elementary problems of human behavior (and physics too) that remain unsolved.
Sure, this goes to point number "2) science is in it's most basic infancy at this point in time"
georgeob1 wrote:Moreover we usually got to the simple truths we have learned by complex circuitous routes.
Assuming you are correct, it does not matter to me if we get to simple truths by complex circuitous routes, the end justifies the means. For example I was putting a sub-floor in my basement and I went through a complex circuitous route that an experienced dude would not have to do; nor will I now if I built another sub-floor. It's called the learning process.
georgeob1 wrote:In grad school I developed a real affection for applied mathematics. I got into advanced Linear Algebra, Tensor Analysis, Generalized Harmonic Analysis, etc, believing I was discovering new worlds. I still recall the day when I discovered that a Finite Fourier Transform was merely an Hermitian matrix. The whole structure that has so fascinated me collapsed into two or three central ideas. Then along came chaos and fractals. accompanied by new evidence of nature's use of self similar forms and the potential for chaos (deterministic but unpredictable. and yet self-regulating systems - all imbedded in even the simplest non-linear equations, but long ignored. Sensitive dependence opened so many new doors - ranging from classical problems like turbulent viscous flow to even new understanding of the complexities of the genome -- the relative difference between the information in ours and that of worms is trivial compared to the whole - and yet the difference! Later, I suspect we will discover yet another simplicity hidden by our usually overly complex constructs.
Yes it can be that more direct efficient means to do the same thing are developed, some call it progress, some call it the learning process, some don't care what they call it and prefer to walk the dog or have a snooze.
georgeob1 wrote:I agree the relativistic question of what came "before" the big bang may have no meaning within the universe that resulted from it. That however is not the question. I do indeed look for causes, and acknowledge that they may not be strictly sequential in our notion of time. However the notion that the fact that our scientific models cannot accomodate the ultimate cause, somehow constitutes closure of the question, strikes me as an absurd conceit, more reflective of the sometimes meaningless complexities of our scientific models than of reality.
I am not sure where you get the view that if our present day science does not accomodate ultimate cause, it must mean the question is closed. I am not aware of any legitimate scientific discipline that would make a blanket claim of this type, and I certainly would not.
I said in order for the question of ultimate cause to have meaning, it's presuppositions must be addressed. Ultimate cause "presupposes a meaning which you have not shown to have demonstrable merit".
Two of them nasty little presuppositions that get in the way of ultimate cause are causality and linear time!
