NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #27/NN_1992_27.iso/spool/alt/callahan/13957

Internet Message Format | 1992-11-20 | 4.0 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!cis.ohio-state.edu!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!ohstpy!miavx1!jwwalden
Newsgroups: alt.callahans
Subject: Re: Science and god:  Are they incompatible?  If so, why?
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
From: [e-mail] (P'relan)
Date: 20 Nov 92 18:09:25 -0500
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Organization: Dept. of Physics
Lines: 63

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Michael S. Schiffer) writes:
> In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (P'relan) writes:
>>In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Michael S. Schiffer) writes:
>>>     "Granted, science cannot operate in a world which is not
>>> uniformly lawful a large majority of the time.  But the existence of a
>>> being or beings with the power to violate those laws does not
>>> invalidate science (though it might circumscribe its scope) so long as
>>> that power is not used to violate laws too often.
>
>>No, even one violation of the physical laws invalidates science.  Extremely
>>limited intervention does not prevent science from being *useful* though it
>>remove any chance of it being correct which may be what you meant by not
>>invalidating science.
>
>     "I guess I'm not sure what you mean by `correct'.
> Supernatural intervention might imply that there are cases that _no_
> theory _can_ cover, but there would still be a wide field of natural
> law which science would apply to.

"Correct" is an imprecise term.  The problem I see with supernatural
intervention is that you lose the reliability and consistency of science -
you can't list the cases where your laws don't apply because an
omnipotent being can do anything and thus there are an infinite number
of cases.  Science would lose its predictive value because you could only
hope that your prediction would be valid.

> If scientific validity
> depends on a belief that a Final Theory covering every phenomenon in
> the universe will be found, then I suspect that it's in danger
> regardless of the presence of a supernatural."

Whether I believe a final theory is possible depends on what you mean by
such a theory.  I've found that other people have odd ideas of what a
"theory of everything" is compared to what physicists mean when they talk
about TOE's.

However, I do disagree with your objections about chaos preventing the
existence of such a theory.  I don't see that chaos applies to quantum
mechanics as it does to macroscopic phenomena though I could be wrong and
while it may be extremely difficult to predict chaotic phenomena and well
beyond our current abilities, I'm not sure that it's fundamentally impossible.

>     "Statistical laws are, in part, a confession of ignorance.  We
> can know position and momentum within precisely defined limits-- but
> further deponent sayeth not.  Scientifically, a difference which is
> unknowable is no difference at all, and it's meaningless to say that
> a `real' precise position and momentum exists at all-- but the fact
> that something is unknowable doesn't necessarily mean that it's
> nonexistent-- and conversely, what we can't see we can't determine
> laws for.

What should you do with things that you can't perceive or know?  I
assume that they don't exist til I can find a way to perceive/know them.
Do things that you can't perceive or know exist?  Why does a particle
have to have a specific position and momentum at the same instant?
What do you even mean by a specific position?  Since you've never
known the specific position of anything, why should you assume that
there is a specific position?  I think the problem is more in humanity
in thinking that we should be able to know both - the statistical laws
of quantum mechanics may very well not be a confession of ignorance
because there may be no more to know.

P'relan, a physicist who's seen too much quantum physics