Science Forums 2

[James Putnam]

Hello Buffy,

Originally Posted by Buffy

Welcome to the Lion's Den Mr. Putnam! You use a lot of awfully big words, and I'm kind of a simple gal, so let me summarize what I think I heard you say here:

1) You "think" a lot of things are wrong with physics and cosmology (you did have time to include Evolution, but I suppose you'll get there soon enough). You'll find we value opinions around here, but only empirical evidence is taken seriously.

That is what I think about theoretical physics. A lot of things are wrong. Primarily the interjection of ideas that are not empirical. Those unempirical theoretical ideas are the result of a philosphical preferrence to believe in mechanical materialism. There is no empirical evidence to support this belief. We directly experience only intelligence and information. Mechanical materialism has nothing to offer as a cause or explanation for the existence of intelligence. I believe that evolution occured by intelligent design.

2) You claim that physical theories do not explain their causes, but do not explain why a cause is relevant to a theory being empirically provable. Your definition of "cause" seems to point to--although you seem to studiously avoid saying it directly--what most folks would call "metaphysics" or "religion." These are not scientific areas of human discourse and do not have a useful place within the scientific method. They're not wrong, a lot of folks who are heavily involved in science also believe in a higher power, but also believe that this has nothing to do with science. "Render unto Newton..."

What I point to is that intelligence is cause. Intelligence is empirical. We know it exists. We do not know that any of the mechanical causes of theoretical physics exist. Intelligence is our source for all interpretation of the operation of the universe. It is the cause for what we think we know.

3) You claim that no empirical evidence exists for any theories and if they were tested they would prove to be wrong.

I claim that no empirical evidence exists for the mechanical causes put forward by theoretical physics. I claim they cannot be tested, because they only exist in the imaginations of physicists. Please tell me which ones you know to be real.

4) You claim that theories are "internally consistent", which a lot of us would take as meaning they produce accurate and repeatable results, but do not explain why its bad that theories that are accepted as valid by scientists produce repeatable, empirically proven results.

I only assumed that the sample theory was internally consistent. I do not claim that theories in general are internally consistent. Theories do not produce empirical results. They extrapolate possible results from equations that imitate patterns observed in empirical data. Success in making predictions is not sufficient to prove the validity of a theory. Good theory demonstrates unity and successful predictions.

5) You claim that time is not measurable. Einstein proved that it is relative and differs by the relative speed of the observer and this has been shown repeatedly through empirical experiments to be a valid theory.

Einstein proved nothing about time. He nor anyone else could perform experiments on 'time'. Time is not something that we can handle and observe. We observe motion of matter. If the motion of matter slows, then that proves only that the motion of matter slowed. Einstein offerred a theory. Theory is not empirical fact. His theory proves only that its equations accurately imitate patterns observed in the motion of matter up to a point. Where it fails mechanically, quantum theory is brought to the rescue. Where it fails on properties of the universe that cannot be described by mechanical theory, it remains not rescued. His theory, as well as all other mechanical theories, does not represent the natural properties of a universe that gave birth to life and intelligence.

There are lots of postulates that are shown mathematically for which there is no *current* physical, empirical evidence, but this is not sufficient argument under the scientific method to show that they are wrong or require a "theory of causes."

Those who put forward theories have the duty to show that they are good theories. Good theory shows accurate predictions and unity. All explanations of causes are theory. We know nothing about cause. We know only about effects. It is our lack of knowledge about cause that necessitates the invention of theory. Any theory that is mechanical fails right from the start to account for this universe.

We'd be greatly interested (not to say being challenged to disprove, and being greatly entertained) to hear your responses to these issues. We will do nothing to stifle your opinions, as the scientific method requires that *all* questions posed about a theory be entertained, but realize that such questions can be irrelevant because they invoke non-scientific concepts, and may reasonably be refuted as "science" on those grounds alone. This is not "closed-mindedness," but rather an adherence to logic (which unfortunately you deride as being a mere "crude approximation" of the "truth."). There are thousands of years of development in the scientific method, and while its proponents will willingly admit that it does not *explain* the existence of a creator, many will argue vociferously on the metaphysical side that claiming that science is irrelevant because there is an intelligent creator is unnecessary and offensive.

Mechanical materialism can even more easily be viewed as unnecssary and offensive. It has no relevance to the existence of intelligence. Please cite a mechanical material cause for anything and explain how you know it is true. Please cite the cause of intelligence.

Cheers,
Buffy

James Putnam