The God Particle
It doesn't surprise me that the predicted, and hoped for, Higgs Boson particle has in the passed been dubbed as "The God Particle".
There were (and still are) people who believed in Newtons "laws", and yet, at the beginning of the twentieth century, those laws were seen to be over-simplifications of a more complex theory.
What is the difference between a man from 1694, who believed Newton's theories, and a man of today, who believes God fills the gaps that science cannot? Both, in sense, are wrong, because a new explanation can emerge; and yet, both in a sense are right, because at the time there is or was no better explanation. Today we either say, "That is God's work", or, "One day science will answer it." From a philosphical viewpoint, both these are beliefs.
Of course the theory yields practical results, while the God answer gives us nothing useful, and history tells that empirical knowledge will reveal more about that Universe as time rolls on, disproving the God explantation.
In this sense, God becomes a symbol of the unknown, and is constantly pushed further and deeper into obscurity, and becomes smaller and ever more mysterious. It does not surprise to me, that the media now talk of a God particle.
Suppose we find this so called "God Particle". What then? Haven't we just made God so tiny, that we can't conceivably make him any smaller?
Really, this doesn't apply only to the Higgs Boson particle. It applies to everything. If the gaps in science are the only place where God can fit in, and those gaps are getting smaller and smaller, what happens if a point is reached where science cannot delve any deeper? If a limit to empirical knowledge is reached?
There were (and still are) people who believed in Newtons "laws", and yet, at the beginning of the twentieth century, those laws were seen to be over-simplifications of a more complex theory.
What is the difference between a man from 1694, who believed Newton's theories, and a man of today, who believes God fills the gaps that science cannot? Both, in sense, are wrong, because a new explanation can emerge; and yet, both in a sense are right, because at the time there is or was no better explanation. Today we either say, "That is God's work", or, "One day science will answer it." From a philosphical viewpoint, both these are beliefs.
Of course the theory yields practical results, while the God answer gives us nothing useful, and history tells that empirical knowledge will reveal more about that Universe as time rolls on, disproving the God explantation.
In this sense, God becomes a symbol of the unknown, and is constantly pushed further and deeper into obscurity, and becomes smaller and ever more mysterious. It does not surprise to me, that the media now talk of a God particle.
Suppose we find this so called "God Particle". What then? Haven't we just made God so tiny, that we can't conceivably make him any smaller?
Really, this doesn't apply only to the Higgs Boson particle. It applies to everything. If the gaps in science are the only place where God can fit in, and those gaps are getting smaller and smaller, what happens if a point is reached where science cannot delve any deeper? If a limit to empirical knowledge is reached?
ASKER CERTIFIED SOLUTION
membership
This solution is only available to members.
To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.
SOLUTION
membership
This solution is only available to members.
To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.
ASKER
I'm aware of what constitutes a good theory. Newton is not invalidated. I use classical physisc whenever I make an itinerary. However, my question is not a scientific one, but metaphysical one intended to spark a metaphysical discussion.
The point was that on a philosophical level, to believe in Newton's classical theories is the truth is not much different to believing that God fills the gaps in science is the truth. They both appear to be true for while, or within a certain framework, but later more knowledge gives us a better explanation.
However, my question was this. If the gaps in science are the only place where God can fit in, and those gaps are getting smaller and smaller, what happens if a point is reached where science cannot delve any deeper? If a limit to empirical knowledge is reached? if we reach a situation where we can longer improve a theory, or have to accept that something is intrinsically unknowable.
We can put God there again, but this time, no-one would be able to challenge that by providing another theory.
Your thoughts please....
The point was that on a philosophical level, to believe in Newton's classical theories is the truth is not much different to believing that God fills the gaps in science is the truth. They both appear to be true for while, or within a certain framework, but later more knowledge gives us a better explanation.
However, my question was this. If the gaps in science are the only place where God can fit in, and those gaps are getting smaller and smaller, what happens if a point is reached where science cannot delve any deeper? If a limit to empirical knowledge is reached? if we reach a situation where we can longer improve a theory, or have to accept that something is intrinsically unknowable.
We can put God there again, but this time, no-one would be able to challenge that by providing another theory.
Your thoughts please....
I only believe in things that can be measured... but I have faith that God, if he is around, doesn't need a place to fit into. Many times in history we have reached points where someone has declared that we have reached our limits, that we could go no further. So far that has never been true.
Basically, I don't accept your premise or your questions. To believe in a truth is to stop thinking about it. I think that's called religion. Another way to put it is that I don't believe in ultimate answers beyond which we can not go.
The name 'God Particle' is from the name of a book on physics by Leon Lederman.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higgs_boson
Basically, I don't accept your premise or your questions. To believe in a truth is to stop thinking about it. I think that's called religion. Another way to put it is that I don't believe in ultimate answers beyond which we can not go.
The name 'God Particle' is from the name of a book on physics by Leon Lederman.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higgs_boson
SOLUTION
membership
This solution is only available to members.
To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.
Just as I started reading your post, they had the press announcement ceremony on the TV news with the director of the collider and Peter Higgs.
To me, rules are for those who can't or won't figure out what's going on.
To me, rules are for those who can't or won't figure out what's going on.
More about the God Particle:
http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/31273/why-is-higgs-boson-given-the-name-the-god-particle
http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/31273/why-is-higgs-boson-given-the-name-the-god-particle
ASKER
Dave Baldwin
Everyone has beliefs, many beliefs, and many they are not aware of. But would those people want to be considered religious because they hold beliefs?
hdhondt
The thing is, some may use God to fill the gaps, and others might want to call that lazy or ignorant, but what if there are always gaps? What if no matter how hard we look, the unknown permeates the entire universe, like the cracks in a shattered mirror? If the unknown is constantly with us, then are the actual details of what is known, and what is unknown, important? What would be significant is that there is always the known and the unknown.
It is possible to have the known, without the unknown? Isn't the unknown required to define the known?
I only believe in things that can be measured... but I have faith that God, if he is around, doesn't need a place to fit into.I tend to agree.
Many times in history we have reached points where someone has declared that we have reached our limits, that we could go no further. So far that has never been true.Well, we have the Bohr interpretation of QM, later validated by Bell's Theorem, which suggests there is no hidden variables in the quantum world, which means we have to accept the behaviour of matter as defined by the quantum maths, and not delve deeper. Also, to say we have never reached "our" limits, is like saying we have never reached a complete understanding of everything either. It just seems to go on and on, the gaps just getting smaller and smaller.
Basically, I don't accept your premise or your questions. To believe in a truth is to stop thinking about it. I think that's called religion. ¨
Everyone has beliefs, many beliefs, and many they are not aware of. But would those people want to be considered religious because they hold beliefs?
Another way to put it is that I don't believe in ultimate answers beyond which we can not go.Which is like saying you believe there is always a answer - and since that's a belief, then should we consider you religious? ;-)
hdhondt
There is no way science can ever prove such a god does not exist. No matter how deep science probes, he can always be just another level further down.Indeed, and this is close to the heart of my question - with the addtion of the premise that human knowledge about the universe will eventually reach natural limit´s. I'm not saying I personally believe this, but I consider it at possibility. Such a limit could be the human brain, which seems to be finite therefore would have a limited capacity for modelling complex systems. However, the brain is not static - it's constantly developing and evolving, and so must our knowledge. But I don't see how the brain can conceptualise the enitre universe. Other limits could be an empirical ones regarding to measurement. I mentioned Bohr already. Then we have the massive amounts of energy and technology required to find these particles, the speed of light, plancks length, black holes, what came before the big bang etc.
On the other hand, there are already scientists who think that it may not be that difficult to start a Big Bang. In that case, maybe our universe was started by "people" in another universe, and in the future we may continue the process by starting another Big Bang. I know this is fantasy at present, but if that ever happens, are we then gods?That's what they say, but I think what they mean is that God is a symbol of the unknown, or unknowable, and there is a mystery about existence that eludes scientific explanation. Perhaps it has to do with the fact that psychologist CG Jung maintained that God, for us, is the human unsconcious. Or rather that is where God seems to be situated.
Again, the believers will then say: but who started the very first universe? That must be god.
The thing is, some may use God to fill the gaps, and others might want to call that lazy or ignorant, but what if there are always gaps? What if no matter how hard we look, the unknown permeates the entire universe, like the cracks in a shattered mirror? If the unknown is constantly with us, then are the actual details of what is known, and what is unknown, important? What would be significant is that there is always the known and the unknown.
It is possible to have the known, without the unknown? Isn't the unknown required to define the known?
No, the unknown is not 'required', it just is. You can't make a useful rule about the things you don't know. And the 'converse' of a statement is not automatically valid. You can only consider me religious if you start tithing to me. I said that I don't 'believe' in your limits, I don't believe in 'final answers'. That's just someone trying to say 'No'. Got nothing to do with physics or science.
And a lot of people have beliefs that they hold 'religiously' because they can't or won't think about them. God is whatever they say it is.
To quote myself, "What passes for though often comes out the wrong end." Most people are woefully short on information when they are 'thinking'. Others seem to 'overthink' in the quest to find answers for everything. 'everything' isn't available to any one person. Maybe not even all of them combined.
My philosophy is that if you got dinner today, everything else is gravy.
And a lot of people have beliefs that they hold 'religiously' because they can't or won't think about them. God is whatever they say it is.
To quote myself, "What passes for though often comes out the wrong end." Most people are woefully short on information when they are 'thinking'. Others seem to 'overthink' in the quest to find answers for everything. 'everything' isn't available to any one person. Maybe not even all of them combined.
My philosophy is that if you got dinner today, everything else is gravy.
There are a number of words that have no practical meaning in the English language. The first three that come to mind are 'should', 'must', and "can't". Those are usually used to impose a view or a rule upon someone else.
ASKER
There can't be a "known" unless there is an "unknown" - these two words define each other. It would seem from this that you can't "know" everything, because that would remove the unknown and "known" would no longer have a meaning.
No, but it has a lot to do with your earlier statement that where said you only believe in things that can be measured, then in the next paragraph, contradicted that statement by claiming that you believe we can go on knowing and learning continuously.It is this belief which you use as a basis to reject my question and its premise. I can't let you get away with that can I? :-)
And the 'converse' of a statement is not automatically valid. You can only consider me religious if you start tithing to me. I said that I don't 'believe' in your limits, I don't believe in 'final answers'. That's just someone trying to say 'No'. Got nothing to do with physics or science.
No, but it has a lot to do with your earlier statement that where said you only believe in things that can be measured, then in the next paragraph, contradicted that statement by claiming that you believe we can go on knowing and learning continuously.It is this belief which you use as a basis to reject my question and its premise. I can't let you get away with that can I? :-)
You can certainly argue your point but you can't stop me from "getting away with it". In almost every case above, you have tried to use the 'reverse' of what I have said to 'prove' something about me and you have been wrong. Putting 'words in my mouth' won't prove anything.
And you're arguing 'words' as though they have a concrete reality. Mother Nature is laughing and telling God, "Oh My! That was a Good One!". Other human languages have different words and they don't all have the same words. I can't quote one right now but there are languages where you can't say some of the things you can in English because they simply don't have the words for it.
Actually, only one of those words above is 'defined' and that is 'known'. 'Unknown' is simply anything else. Kind of like the technical definition of NULL. NULL is 'not defined' and can not be compared to anything because it is 'not defined' and thus 'not known'.
And you're arguing 'words' as though they have a concrete reality. Mother Nature is laughing and telling God, "Oh My! That was a Good One!". Other human languages have different words and they don't all have the same words. I can't quote one right now but there are languages where you can't say some of the things you can in English because they simply don't have the words for it.
Actually, only one of those words above is 'defined' and that is 'known'. 'Unknown' is simply anything else. Kind of like the technical definition of NULL. NULL is 'not defined' and can not be compared to anything because it is 'not defined' and thus 'not known'.
ASKER
I wasn't putting words into your mouth - just pointing out a contradiction in your argument - which is a normal thing to do in discussions like this, otherwise how can a constructive discussion proceed?
You say:
"I do not believe in ultimate answers beyond which we cannot go" is the same as saying I do not believe we cannot go there, which is a double negative. It's the same as saying I believe we can go there. This is not just about verbal logic. It's about you expressing a belief without realising it, and futhermore, one which cannot be measured! I get a bit irritated with people who arrogantly tout empirical science as having all the answers and ignorantly ridicule religion. Usually such people don't recognise that they have beliefs that are irrational as much as anyone else.
Regarding the known and the unkown. It would indeed be silly if I were just playing with words. But I am not. I'm playing with concepts ;-) The unknown is a concept - a known concept of course. The concept exists because we can infer that there is an unknown. The unknown is like the background to the known.
One example is the cosmos, the known universe, which is like an expanding bubble from the big bang. It is known through the documentation based years of accumulation of scientific knowledge about it. But we don't know what is "outside" that bubble or what came "before" it, because anything we discover becomes part of it.
Another is example is the human mind, which is also like an expanding bubble - this time of consciousness. But we don't know what is "outside" that bubble or what came "before" it, or what comes after it, because anything we discover becomes part of it.
Yet the unknown, or the unconscious, appear to be constant companions of the known. They are the background of the known. How can something be known, without not being known at one time? When we say we know something, we must once not have known it. Why bother to have the word "known" at all? Known and Unknown go together like light and dark, sound a silence, order and chaos. These dualities limitations imposed by the framework of the mind.
Dictionary defintions exist for light and sound etc, but without darkness, or silence, those definitions would never have existed.
You say:
I only believe in things that can be measured...then in next paragraph:
Basically, I don't accept your premise or your questions. To believe in a truth is to stop thinking about it. I think that's called religion. Another way to put it is that I don't believe in ultimate answers beyond which we can not go.
"I do not believe in ultimate answers beyond which we cannot go" is the same as saying I do not believe we cannot go there, which is a double negative. It's the same as saying I believe we can go there. This is not just about verbal logic. It's about you expressing a belief without realising it, and futhermore, one which cannot be measured! I get a bit irritated with people who arrogantly tout empirical science as having all the answers and ignorantly ridicule religion. Usually such people don't recognise that they have beliefs that are irrational as much as anyone else.
Regarding the known and the unkown. It would indeed be silly if I were just playing with words. But I am not. I'm playing with concepts ;-) The unknown is a concept - a known concept of course. The concept exists because we can infer that there is an unknown. The unknown is like the background to the known.
One example is the cosmos, the known universe, which is like an expanding bubble from the big bang. It is known through the documentation based years of accumulation of scientific knowledge about it. But we don't know what is "outside" that bubble or what came "before" it, because anything we discover becomes part of it.
Another is example is the human mind, which is also like an expanding bubble - this time of consciousness. But we don't know what is "outside" that bubble or what came "before" it, or what comes after it, because anything we discover becomes part of it.
Yet the unknown, or the unconscious, appear to be constant companions of the known. They are the background of the known. How can something be known, without not being known at one time? When we say we know something, we must once not have known it. Why bother to have the word "known" at all? Known and Unknown go together like light and dark, sound a silence, order and chaos. These dualities limitations imposed by the framework of the mind.
Dictionary defintions exist for light and sound etc, but without darkness, or silence, those definitions would never have existed.
I think he meant something like:
Light is "something" (photons) but darkness is not "something", is just the absence of the light.
Light is "something" (photons) but darkness is not "something", is just the absence of the light.
The reason I keep arguing with you is because I do believe you are playing with words. And I do believe that you are trying to make up rules on your terms. And I do believe you are trying to reword my words. And you are saying that your definitions are correct and I don't agree with you.
In many ways you keep saying that you are right and my response is, I don't think so. Many people look for Answers with a capital 'A'. I believe from my experience and observations that most of the time all you get is whatever comes next.
In many ways you keep saying that you are right and my response is, I don't think so. Many people look for Answers with a capital 'A'. I believe from my experience and observations that most of the time all you get is whatever comes next.
SOLUTION
membership
This solution is only available to members.
To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.
ASKER
Hi Tom -- good to see you here again. You asked me to clarify "...the gaps just getting smaller and smaller."
I think it was Aristotle who first suggested the idea of small, indivisable particles as the building blocks of everything, then in the 19th & 20th Century these were further broken down into the sub-atomic particles. And then, as technology advanced in the late 20th century, more and more sub-atomic particles were discovered, like quarks and so on. So, in this case, the gap in our knowledge started out as a big, mysterious, but this is now seen to be made up of a many smaller particles. And sometimes it's they are not particles but waves, etc. The gaps have got smaller, but are still there. We've looked deeper, found more, but then new gaps arise. We have increased our knowledge, but at the same time only pushed away the boundary of the unknown. This is my point with the unknown - it seems always to be there, lurking behind the latest discovery. There's always something that is oustide of the loop.
Perhaps gaps was a misleading word to use.
Another example,. Once, religious people could go around saying that God created animals as they are, and no-one knew any better. But then Darwin happened, and suddenly people knew better. God could not have made animals as they are. So God either had to go away completely, or be relegated to fit into the scientific view of evolution. Any rational person now could not accept that God somehow made the tiny wings of a butterfly in his celestial workshop, like a child building a model airplane, and then breathed life into it and sent it forth to multiply (or whatever). Now God had to be small, causing evolution to happen. It was his plan. God got smaller, more subtle. In this sense, God is synomous with the Unknown. This is just one example of what has been happening continously since the 1700s. Gaps where God can fit in get smaller. I hope it illustrates what I'm getting at.
I find myself pretty much in agreement with the rest of your post.
I think it was Aristotle who first suggested the idea of small, indivisable particles as the building blocks of everything, then in the 19th & 20th Century these were further broken down into the sub-atomic particles. And then, as technology advanced in the late 20th century, more and more sub-atomic particles were discovered, like quarks and so on. So, in this case, the gap in our knowledge started out as a big, mysterious, but this is now seen to be made up of a many smaller particles. And sometimes it's they are not particles but waves, etc. The gaps have got smaller, but are still there. We've looked deeper, found more, but then new gaps arise. We have increased our knowledge, but at the same time only pushed away the boundary of the unknown. This is my point with the unknown - it seems always to be there, lurking behind the latest discovery. There's always something that is oustide of the loop.
Perhaps gaps was a misleading word to use.
Probable confirmation of a boson at the predicted energies for the 'Higgs boson' tends to confirm some aspects of the Standard Model. Fine. But does it in any way help us to understand what the blasted things actually are? Does it in any way help us to understand what a 'particle' is? Does it help us to understand what 'mass' is?My thoughts exactly.
But exactly what "gap" has been shrunk that 'God' would now be relegated into?In that sense, particles that cannot be broken down!
Another example,. Once, religious people could go around saying that God created animals as they are, and no-one knew any better. But then Darwin happened, and suddenly people knew better. God could not have made animals as they are. So God either had to go away completely, or be relegated to fit into the scientific view of evolution. Any rational person now could not accept that God somehow made the tiny wings of a butterfly in his celestial workshop, like a child building a model airplane, and then breathed life into it and sent it forth to multiply (or whatever). Now God had to be small, causing evolution to happen. It was his plan. God got smaller, more subtle. In this sense, God is synomous with the Unknown. This is just one example of what has been happening continously since the 1700s. Gaps where God can fit in get smaller. I hope it illustrates what I'm getting at.
I find myself pretty much in agreement with the rest of your post.
@viki2000
Just don't forget that the ultimate "darkness" (empty space) is most definitely something. We know it seethes with virtual particles. It's the reason why black holes eventually disappear, and scientists are starting to think that "nothing" may have given rise to the Big Bang and hence, us. No proof as yet, but watch this space!
darkness is not "something", is just the absence of the light.
Just don't forget that the ultimate "darkness" (empty space) is most definitely something. We know it seethes with virtual particles. It's the reason why black holes eventually disappear, and scientists are starting to think that "nothing" may have given rise to the Big Bang and hence, us. No proof as yet, but watch this space!
ASKER
It doesn't matter if darkness is some "thing" or not. The point is that without darkness, we would have no light. You might want to argue that there would be infinite light, everywhere, but it would be imperceptible, because there is nothing to compare it to. The would be nothing to distinguish it against.
Just like there can be no order, without chaos.
Likewise with things. In order to have a "thing" there must be the absence of the thing "ie. no-thing" in order for the concept of "thing" to have arisen. We must be able to perceive both the thing, and no-thing. Again, these opposites define each other.
Just like there can be no order, without chaos.
Likewise with things. In order to have a "thing" there must be the absence of the thing "ie. no-thing" in order for the concept of "thing" to have arisen. We must be able to perceive both the thing, and no-thing. Again, these opposites define each other.
Gaps where God can fit in get smaller.
I don't see where that makes good sense.
I'll use my "mind over matter" blurb to try to illustrate. Somewhere I have an awareness that seems to be associated with my brain. I might try to explain that and get around to wondering whether the awareness resides in the particles or in the fields. (I know this is mostly nonsense, but I'm not saying it as a real proposed analysis of awareness. It's just some stuff that leads up to a point.)
If I go the particle route, I'll begin thinking that awareness actually is a property of matter itself. Little point pieces that can accumulate into larger collections, eventually achieving 'self-awareness'. I could let myself imagine that every single particle in the universe, then, has a degree of awareness, and that all of everything is as special as any complex combination.
But we know a bit more nowadays. We know that dark matter exists, and we're pretty sure about dark energy. Maybe it's only a property of dark matter, which has been why we've never found a way to demonstrate awareness or consciousness as a physical reality.
If I go the field route, I might begin thinking of how it arises as an 'emergent property'. As such, it could be thought of maybe as a 'meta-property'. When we think of 'emergent properties' arising out of complexity, does that relate to a 'gap'? If so, is it a 'gap' that is 'smaller' than the components? Or can words like 'small' even have any meaning? Or has the 'gap' actually become much, much larger, encompassing everything within the complexity including all of the relationships and interactions along with all of the detailed components? (Assuming that 'larger' has meaning for it.)
I just don't see how the concept of a 'gap' can apply at all for 'God'. We might eventually come up with total description of how the pocketwatch operates. All of our formulae, all of our theories of physics and all other physical sciences, including biology, might eventually work perfectly. Every tiny action might become predictable and explainable. We'll know how the springs and gears and lubricants all fit and work together and affect each other. Does it eliminate the watchmaker? Does that diminish the watchmaker?
To me, all it does is let us know how the parts work.
I just don't see how 'gaps' come into it. Personally, I wouldn't be surprised if all the 'gaps' in and around physics are someday (some century, some millennium) eliminated. I don't see how it matters.
As we are able to explain more about how "stuff" works, has it relegated awareness to smaller 'gaps'? Is there a significant difference between 'gaps' for awareness and for 'God'? (Assuming 'God' exists, I'm pretty there's a big difference. It's the idea of the mysteries, the unknown, that may be important when we think of 'gaps'.)
Tom
I don't see where that makes good sense.
I'll use my "mind over matter" blurb to try to illustrate. Somewhere I have an awareness that seems to be associated with my brain. I might try to explain that and get around to wondering whether the awareness resides in the particles or in the fields. (I know this is mostly nonsense, but I'm not saying it as a real proposed analysis of awareness. It's just some stuff that leads up to a point.)
If I go the particle route, I'll begin thinking that awareness actually is a property of matter itself. Little point pieces that can accumulate into larger collections, eventually achieving 'self-awareness'. I could let myself imagine that every single particle in the universe, then, has a degree of awareness, and that all of everything is as special as any complex combination.
But we know a bit more nowadays. We know that dark matter exists, and we're pretty sure about dark energy. Maybe it's only a property of dark matter, which has been why we've never found a way to demonstrate awareness or consciousness as a physical reality.
If I go the field route, I might begin thinking of how it arises as an 'emergent property'. As such, it could be thought of maybe as a 'meta-property'. When we think of 'emergent properties' arising out of complexity, does that relate to a 'gap'? If so, is it a 'gap' that is 'smaller' than the components? Or can words like 'small' even have any meaning? Or has the 'gap' actually become much, much larger, encompassing everything within the complexity including all of the relationships and interactions along with all of the detailed components? (Assuming that 'larger' has meaning for it.)
I just don't see how the concept of a 'gap' can apply at all for 'God'. We might eventually come up with total description of how the pocketwatch operates. All of our formulae, all of our theories of physics and all other physical sciences, including biology, might eventually work perfectly. Every tiny action might become predictable and explainable. We'll know how the springs and gears and lubricants all fit and work together and affect each other. Does it eliminate the watchmaker? Does that diminish the watchmaker?
To me, all it does is let us know how the parts work.
I just don't see how 'gaps' come into it. Personally, I wouldn't be surprised if all the 'gaps' in and around physics are someday (some century, some millennium) eliminated. I don't see how it matters.
As we are able to explain more about how "stuff" works, has it relegated awareness to smaller 'gaps'? Is there a significant difference between 'gaps' for awareness and for 'God'? (Assuming 'God' exists, I'm pretty there's a big difference. It's the idea of the mysteries, the unknown, that may be important when we think of 'gaps'.)
Tom
ASKER
I just don't see how the concept of a 'gap' can apply at all for 'God'. We might eventually come up with total description of how the pocketwatch operates. All of our formulae, all of our theories of physics and all other physical sciences, including biology, might eventually work perfectly. Every tiny action might become predictable and explainable. We'll know how the springs and gears and lubricants all fit and work together and affect each other. Does it eliminate the watchmaker? Does that diminish the watchmaker?Gap" is just a way of saying a gap in our knowledge, which would be synonomous with the unknown. A gap in the known = unknown. The gap is in the mind, in us. I am wondering if it is an intrinsic part of the mind. Like a balloon that is inflating, the volume of knowledge within increases, but so does the balloon's surface area, and beyond that surface area is the unknown.... In this analogy the unknown is always present, regardless of the size of the ballon. Also, the ballon has a natural limit on its size.
Creationists can't argue against evolution, although they do try. The empirical findings of science, and consistent theories of science, offer far more plausible explanations of how the advanced species of this planet came to be.
But a tiny God is hard to argue against.
God is a concept, and my question is really about how that concept is changing for many, rather than an expression of any belief or view I may hold. My own "view" on the subject is very similar to yours.
Is there a significant difference between 'gaps' for awareness and for 'God'? (Assuming 'God' exists, I'm pretty there's a big difference. It's the idea of the mysteries, the unknown, that may be important when we think of 'gaps'.)Gaps in awareness... can there be a gap in awareness? In knowledge, yes, but in awareness?
ASKER
They started looking for the Higgs-Boson because they postualted a Higgs-Boson field that permeates all of space, interaction with give us the properties of matter and the forces that govern our existence.
So now it's down to an invisible field that permeates all space, and so, why and what is this field? Why is there, where did it come from? What's to stop people equating this with God?
So now it's down to an invisible field that permeates all space, and so, why and what is this field? Why is there, where did it come from? What's to stop people equating this with God?
ASKER
Well, I made my point with this question but I was hoping for a more lengthy debate. Thanks for the the contributions.
As for theories in physics, any theory that predicts the results is a good theory. At short ranges and medium masses, Newtonian laws work as well as the Theory of Relativity because you can't measure the differences. At longer ranges, larger masses, and especially 'relativistic' speeds, the differences are much more noticeable and measurable. This page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_laws_of_motion discusses the limits of Newtonian physics near the bottom of the article.