...and who can dare challenge it, unless they already have a stake in it? Isn't that a problem?
On the one hand, Theoretical Physics has brought many gifts. On the other, there is no way to restrain it when it deviates far from actual reality,…
...and who can dare challenge it, unless they already have a stake in it? Isn't that a problem?
On the one hand, Theoretical Physics has brought many gifts. On the other, there is no way to restrain it when it deviates far from actual reality, as it often does. In terms of its logical frameworks and philosophical approach to revealing the secrets of the universe, it has a lot in common with theology. And with Quantum Physics, nobody can tell where reality ends and outright fantasy begins. There is no way to tell, because there is no experiential reference point other than a few useful tools nobody completely understands.
Put simply, we can't see the Quantum World, so we can't ever be sure our models are correct. And because they are all based on abstractions from thought experiments, they are not correct. They are incomplete approximations. And from chaos theory, we know what that can lead to; massive deviation.
I apologise if anybody thinks I am in any way denigrating the value of either religion or science. I am not. What I am saying is that Science (with a capital S) has no right to claim access to some sort of absolute truth unless it remains consistent to its own principles. And even then it must be guarded in its claims to truth. But if science is allowed to just make up whole imaginary worlds as it goes along, based on abstractions of situations never seen, and claim that practical benefits are the only proof needed, then the lines between religion and science are getting very blurred.
Is it that religion is more scientific than we think? Or is it that science is more religious than we like to admit?
Comment, like, share, subscribe! And thanks for listening.
