science is built on logic but any system of logic is only as true as its axioms. What are the axioms of science? i Universal consistency in time and space ii causality iii statistical mass action iv insensitivity to error or simplicity I believe these are the assumptions are used to extend the experimental method. I do not believe these are universally true. Given that science has to constantly reinterpret its theories and conclusion in order to maintain consistency with experimental fact, I fail to see how it can reach strong conclusions about anything much before the records of civilization. Given that many similar but not identical events happen in our daily experience. I cannot grant unambiguous extension of theories to non repeatable events, nor can I believe that a finite number of controlled experiment can create legitimate unconditionally true statements about a continuum or extend far into the territory of unwitnessed events. This I believe sets as neutral and conceivably either ambiguous or empty Universal consistency in time and space a) there is no conclusive evidence that the four dimensions we normally pay attention to are completely independent from any others. I do not believe an infinite amount of time can pass and I would consider a zero length transition to be independent of cause. This necessitates a series of infinitesimal changes or a first event. If there is a first event there is at least one uncaused event, how then could it be assumed that there could not be others. otherwise, if we are looking at an infinite regression we would be forced to theorize about arbitrarily short periods of time and collectively they would be uncaused. or our universe is contained on a complex multidimensional surface and local experimental evidence is not applicable to the temperal structure of our universe. Universal causality is probably false. Mankind to me is a perfect example of a overwhelmingly sensitive system. The records of our history seem to say a single thought at a particular time is enough to change the attitudes and goals of nations of people, in this it seems all that can be guaranteed is change. How can we claim to know enough about the universe to even suspect that we are the only system with that much sensitivity and that much influence. statistical mass action does not always apply. Science historically has made up simple theories then has had to embellish them and ultimately replace those theories with ultimately more complex sometimes even propose contradictory theories, so simplicity is only a starting point, it has no authority in and of itself. I do not mean to say science is not useful. I only think that it should hesitate when it tries to say impossible and always or when it says it couldnt happen any other way or lay claim on knowing what does not exist. What if there are even more transitory forces beneath our susceptible error.
Posted on: Thu, 30 Oct 2014 09:21:44 +0000