Quote:
|
Certainly it may seem like the universe is always staying a step ahead of science, but surely it's not literally true that the universe is actually changing its fundamental laws as we discover them.
|
I may have been muddy here: I did not mean to say the fundamental nature of the universe changes with our discoveries, but rather that each new discovery opens up a new box of complexities that seem to lead in many directions. Also, on that same string, so to speak, there is also the question of the observer affecting the equation.
Quote:
|
As for not knowing the purpose of physics: this is surely a case of making a question more complicated than it really is. The purpose of physics is to predict the positions of particles at arbitrary times. And that purpose has not changed since the invention of mathematical physics.
|
Certainly this is the nuts and bolts of physics, and there is great complexity therein. But, the human mind will always draw parallels by its nature, even if there are no logical connections to be made. It is irresistible. The fact that the Schrodinger equation could accurately predict the energy levels and positions of a single hydrogen atom (well, back when I studied it anyway) but fell down and broke into complex assumptive fragments when more was attempted may merely speak to the imperfection of the mathematical models, or it may speak tangentially of another, more insidious effect--the observer's or experimenter's affect on the thing observed. Can a scientist truly stand outside what he is observing?
And to bump back up on the road, can a philosopher truly define a nebulous concept such as "morality" in any exactitude? One could draw the easy parallel that morality and science are both "constructs," but that sidesteps the motivations for their construction. There must always, IMO, be room for intuition and spiritual application, or morality and science both fall flat, for me at least.
Well, that's all I can dredge out of my mind for now! Thanks for a lively discussion!
Cheers,
Lyta