The limitation and outcome of science are discussed from philosophical and anthropological perspective. A metaphysical framework is proposed for humanizing science. The concept of a universal set of perceptions is introduced as the self-contained noumenon, which gives the same ontological status to observation and observer. The observer is embodied as uncertainty quanta in measurements. This concept brings insights to some important issues in modern cosmology. It shows that religion and science can be made compatible in a metaphysical framework that will lead human civilization in the right direction.
Framework for Humanizing Science
17 days later
Hi CornZebra
I hope youre enjoying the contest.
I'm in the process of reviewing your essay and have a couple of questions for you please.
I read your essay a week ago, however I held off making my review because I had trouble understanding aspects. Allow me to explain. I would be reading a paragraph, and I would have a sense that I was following your intended meaning and then the last sentence of the paragraph would through me.
For example last sentence of the first paragraph, second page.
"Such a worldview turns humans into colonists in the material world, disqualified from communicating with advanced
civilizations in the universe."
Your talking about how science empiricism played a role in liberating people from the middle ages faith. Then you mention that science is now drifting away from empiricism, which I assume you have inflation theory and dark energy and dark matter in mind when you say this? And I take your point well to this extent. But then you finish the paragraph with the following statement and suddenly I feel like I might not be understanding you. Because I don't know how you get to that conclusion? Why disqualified from communicating with advanced civilizations?
"Such a worldview turns humans into colonists in the material world, disqualified from communicating with advanced
civilizations in the universe."
Thank you
Swan
5 days later
Steven Andresen
Hello, PersimmonSwan,
Thank you very much for the comment, and sorry for replying late. I just noticed the comment.
I have publish an e-book, which introduces my ideas in more details. I must admit that it was a quite a struggle about how to pack so many stuffs in nine pages in a way that is still understandable. In my book, I discussed the existence of the unity of all life form from which all individual beings spring off. Such unity of all life forms provides the ultimate background and context for the evolution and destiny of all life forms. Civilizations may also be seen as living things, so spiritual pursuit should be an integral part of healthy and advanced civilizations. Unfortunately, the pendulum of human history has swung to the other end, the end of the materialism. Towards this end, the spiritual element of the civilization is drained, just as what happens at the other end, the religious end. (Religion does not mean being spiritual). The worldview is one of the major dynamic forces in this process. That is why I said "Such a worldview turns humans into colonists in the material world, disqualified from communicating with advanced civilizations in the universe."
Best regards.
Oliver Wang Yes I understand. You've attempted to condense a book into a mere 9 pages. I think your essay is like mine, in respect that we have taken the opportunity to share our own ideas without attempting to pander to whats popular and to judges. I mean, we know what people generally believe and we would do very well in contest to write about that. Except that I wouldn't feel motivated in the slightest to write about such things. If somebody else can say it and has said it before, then I don't see the point for me to say it. If I didn't have something original to say then I wouldn't say anything. I'm quite sure. And so I don't expect my essay to do that great, because people are not familiar with the ideas it presents.
Best of luck to you CornZebra
Thank you. Best of luck to you, too.
9 days later
- Edited
Oliver Wang
A very important and interesting essay with ideas aimed at overcoming the conceptual-paradigm crisis in the metaphysical/ontological basis of knowledge.
I fully agree with these conclusions.
<<First, the new scientific theory must be an integral part of a larger philosophical theory in which there is no longer an impassable gulf between metaphysics and science. Moreover, if we are to save the civilization from the rampant proliferation of empiricism, materialism, and objectivism, then metaphysics should be the basis of science, not the other way around, as it was in the postRenaissance scientific revolution. Secondly, this theoretical framework must include an awareness of its own limit. Dualistic logic is based on sensory mechanism, so it is related to cognition and easily quantifiable. However, quantifiable perceptions are only peripheral to life.
Language is a part of logic, and hence is susceptible to the limit of logic. Thus, this theoretical framework must show us a path to spiritual elevation of individual life beyond language and logic. Thirdly, this metaphysical framework should have theoretical completeness and holistic coherence. It means that, as epistemology, it must find a position that transcends faith system and knowledge system in order to ensure self-consistency and coherence of the theory. As a metaphysical theory, there in principle should not be any existence that cannot be explained in the framework. As a theory of values, it has to contain both ontology and a rational account of the cognitive infinity of life. As a natural philosophy, it must provide a legitimate place in the theory for humanity, or more generally, life. That is, it is to account for not only the existence of the noumenon, but also the existence of life as the observer. Fourthly, as a complete philosophical theory, it must contain an explanation of the cycle of life as well as an explanation of time and space, so that questions about the meaning of life can be resolved once and for all. As such, it also provides an explanation of the origin of the universe that is consistent with its epistemology, metaphysics, values, and astronomical observations. In light of its insight to the nature of life, it should even include a general view of society.>>
Have you ever dealt with the problem of the ontological justification /substantiation of mathematics (ontological basification), and hence knowledge in general?
See A. Zenkin's article "SCIENTIFIC COUNTER-REVOLUTION IN MATHEMATICS"
[http://www.ccas.ru/alexzen/papers/ng-02/contr_rev.htm]
He concludes: "the truth should be drawn..."
Have you tried "draw the truth"?
Fully agree with your conclusion:
<<Cosmology, in my opinion, should be the place where the effort to integrate science and humanity is most promising, and hence the first battlefield of this scientific revolution.>>
Fields Prize winner Vladimir Voevodsky (1966-2017):
"What we now call the crisis of Russian science is not only a crisis of Russian science. There is a crisis of world science. Real progress will consist in a very serious fight between science and religion, which will end with their association."
[http://baaltii1.livejournal.com/198675.html]
I think that the main "serious fight" will be here: Meta-Axiom "In the Beginning was the Logos…/ Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος..." VS. Hypothesis "In the Beginning was the "Big bang..."
"Logos" - MetaLAW that governs the Universe (in the spirit of Heraclitus).
Reliance in the construction / creation of the ontological framework, carcass and foundation of knowledge should be / can only be on the metacategory "Logos", Meta-Axiom and the super principle of trinity. Plus a new understanding of matter: Matter is that from which all meanings, forms and structures are born.
In your model of the World there is a so-called. "Big Bang"?
Have you read this letter?
[http://cosmology.info/media/open-letter-on-cosmology.html]
A very important conclusion:
<<At this particular time, we need to find more humanistic and philosophical meaning in science, so that it can lead humanity out of the current social and civilizational dilemma.>>
Vladimir Rogozhin
Thank you, Mr. Rogozhin, for the comment, and also thank you for the links. The topic "SCIENTIFIC COUNTER-REVOLUTION IN MATHEMATICS" is intriguing to me, as the nature of mathematics is always one of the topics in my thought. I'll find out some time and read it. Your comment and quotation are very much to the point. I can see you have comprehensive knowledge and deep understanding of the topic. Very nice to talk to you.
All the best.