Somethign that cannot be explained with science

[Skyclad1uhm1]

Originally posted by: TekViper
ok this is very simple. take an "scientific explanation" about ANYTHING and just keep asking why, why, why at each stage. eventually you'll get to a point on asking why something or such and such happens that they'll be no answer.

More likely you'll get punched in the face for whyning.

 

[superHARD]

Originally posted by: jarsoffart
I remember reading about four forces, gravity, weak strong, nuclear? They can't explain strong or weak, one of them. Can you even explain gravity even?! Why is there gravity?

I remember my teacher not being able to explain gravity.

 

[draggoon01]

Originally posted by: Finnkc
Tree falls in the woods and nothing is there to listen to it does it make a sound?

if a man does something and a women isn't there, is he still wrong?

and i believe science cannot explain what energy is. it can be measured but not explained.

 

[Fencer128]

Originally posted by: draggoon01

Originally posted by: Finnkc
Tree falls in the woods and nothing is there to listen to it does it make a sound?

if a man does something and a women isn't there, is he still wrong?

and i believe science cannot explain what energy is. it can be measured but not explained.

Care to elaborate? "energy cannot be explained" is a bit general!

Cheers,

Andy

 

[dszd0g]

Originally posted by: superHARD


I remember my teacher not being able to explain gravity.

Even when Physicists explain gravity it still leaves a lot to explain. Einstein never managed to unify gravity with the other fundamental forces and thus remains the only non-unified fundamental force.

As far as something less scientific that I believe science has failed to explain: most cultures that developed seperately have many simularities in their folklore and traditions. These simularities can be observed and measured, but to the my knowledge no hypothesis has been made that can be successfully tested. This borders on religion, but unlike most elements of religion it can be scientifically observed.

 

[ZapZilla]

The term "explain" is relative.

Is there an explanation for why the field lines of magnetic flux can be bent but not broken.

 

[Howard]

Originally posted by: MadRat
.999...<>1

Oh, great.

 

[fredtam]

Intelligence.
Single cell organisms have been around for billions of years without it yet continue to thrive and will probably do so long after there are no "intelligent" beings.

 

[KingofFah]

I only read a couple posts and saw something like atoms to quarks. Then the question was what maeks quarks. Whatever makes up quarks is made up of something else. Continues forever and ever. Science cannot explain infinity. What is the largest number? We cannot comprehend things like that. We have a notion of what infinite is but are unable to actually explain it. If i have my understanding of the big bang theory there is a super mass that explodes the universe into existence. Where did the super mass come from? We cannot understand how these things came to be. Just a thought, tell me if i am crazy.

Edit: Thought of something that is derived from infinity. Perfection. We cannot make a perfect sphere, or anything for that matter.

 

[dszd0g]

Originally posted by: Howard

Originally posted by: MadRat
.999...<>1

Oh, great.

That is just a "limit." It is explained in any decent Calculus book.

 

[PowerMacG5]

Originally posted by: rjain

Originally posted by: SickBeast OK...you didn't really properly rebut what I said tho. You used jargon and technicalities to make your case. To respond to your technical description of death, I would reply to say that science cannot explain what happens to the human soul and spirit when we die.

What is this "soul" "jargon" you are using? I'm not familiar with such an observable phenomenon.

"Cause" of the first cell: what came first, the chicken or the egg? Can something suddenly materialize out of nothing? For that matter, what created matter? Science will never be able to explain these things as they are simply beyond human levels of comprehension. *personal bias and speculation included*

The egg came first. Something that wasn't a chicken laid it, and there were mutations in the DNA that made that new organism into a chicken. Yes, something can materialize out of nothing. That's what zero point energy is. Just because we don't know what created matter doesn't mean we will never know that. YOUR comprehension may be far below the levels required to understand these issues, but that don't assume that you're the smartest person ever. Don't assume that we're at the pinnacle of human achievement either, or that something smarter than a human can't exist. Time moves forward. Move with it. Science isn't a religion, it's a process for creating more and more comprehensive predictive models of the world around us.

I believe the chicken is what is considered to have come first. Look at any biological system, with enzyme creation. Say we have this series of enzymes: A -> B -> C -> D -> Product. The step to evolve was D -> Product, and then all the rest of the series evolved from there (So then came C -> D, then B -> C, then A -> B).

 

[Balderdash]

Science cannot explain what happened .0002 seconds BEFORE the Big Bang

 

[plastick]

Science can not explain the beginning of the universe. To rephrase, the beginning of all beginnings.
Either something came from nothing, or there was always something, and evrything came from it.

 

[Cogman]

never thought of the .9999... Thing as a limit, but it makes sence as such. Have him explain math with science. like why when 3x+7=10; x = 1. I garantee that he cant do it without using math (and science was supposed to expain it)

 

[plastick]

Sorry... i didnt bother to read all the posts, so i dont know if anyone posted something similar to what i posted.

 

[plastick]

Science cannot explain what happened .0002 seconds BEFORE the Big Bang

Well, if the big bang did happen, then there wouldn't be any time before it, since it was theoretically the beginning of time and events etc...

 

[plastick]

Can science explain the fundamental existance of something? example: plant, made of cells, cells made of protiens, protiens made of atoms, atoms made of quarks, quarks make of something insanely smaller....and go on and on until you cant go on anymore. But if you can't go on anymore, you've reached the point of where the thing can't exist anymore (I suppose). So does it both exist and not exist?
So how explain the point of how it does exists. Eternal strings of matter and energy through time?

Maybe someone can idnetify with what I'm saying here?

 

[plastick]

Well, I see the forum died.
:frown:

 

[Geomagick]

In a nutshell.


What is the meaning of life?????


Answers on a postcard

 

[Geomagick]

keep asking my computer this and still haven't got a reply

See below, damn you pablo:|

 

[plastick]

Well, George.. that one depends on what you believe. If you believe in evolution, and if that excludes the existance of God, then I'd have to say that there is pretty much no "point" to your life, since there would be no reason for a point. But, if you are, say, a Christian, then the point of life would be God and everyting surrounding him. If you are a computer, then the point of your life is to serve humans. If you are a can of spaghettios, then the point of your life would be to be eaten by me.

 

[dszd0g]

Originally posted by: plastick
Well, George.. that one depends on what you believe. If you believe in evolution, and if that excludes the existance of God, then I'd have to say that there is pretty much no "point" to your life, since there would be no reason for a point. But, if you are, say, a Christian, then the point of life would be God and everyting surrounding him. If you are a computer, then the point of your life is to serve humans. If you are a can of spaghettios, then the point of your life would be to be eaten by me.

Not necessarily. Even if one does not believe in some sort of supreme being (which I do), one could still believe in Darwinism. Which simplified is the advancement of a species. Then scientifically the meaning of life is to advance that species. If through your life you have somehow improved the life of those that come after you, you have had some meaning to your life. This could be as simple as being a good parent and making sure your child(ren) grows up better than you did, or it could be inventing some idea or contraption that improves other people's quality of life.

This Darwinism can be studied scientifically and should demonstrate a meaning to life. Nevertheless, you are welcome to disagree with me.

 

[plastick]

yeah yeah... i agree with you in that area of thinking.

but when he said "point" i figured he meant "the point," as in the point of life, for everyone. Now of course, everyone has their own views and opinions and they are "all right" to themselves, and in their own eyes...but then there is only one truth. but yeah... umm.. i am so tired right now so i dont know if i am making snese...

you said you bleve in a higher pwer... whats your beliefs?

 

[MrColin]

You can only get your teacher to acknowledge something that can't be explained by science in an environment where you can argue with him. If all he lets you do is name something and let him explain it - game over; then you won't get anywhere. If you can argue with him then pick something that is currently unknown. I like a couple of the suggestions above "something that hasn't been detected," and "the cause of the big bang." Use the Socratic Dialogue as in the example below:

you: I know of something that can't be explained by science!

teacher: what?

you: Do you believe that there are things that exist but haven't ever been observed or detected?

Teacher: of course. blah blabidy blah blah....

you: WAIT WAIT WAIT! Can you use science to explain something that hasn't been detected?

teacher: Something that hasn't been detected can be explained scientifically by the fact that no one has observed it and therefore it hasn't been detected. (he may even discuss a little expiriment at this time to refute you and try to change the subject) I hypothesize that there is something that hasn't been detected, now I am observing that all of the students in this room aren't detecting it, blah blah blah, now everyone go and get your fetal pigs for dissection.

you: <approach the teacher directly> But wait, you didn't explain something that hasn't been detected with science, you only did a half-assed thought expiriment that didn't really explain anything! You used science to explain how something is not detected, but you haven't explained something that hasn't been detected ... with science.

teacher: <visibly annoyed> I explained that something exists that has not been detected with science using the scientific method.

you: EXACTLY! you explained that something exists that hasn't been detected, but you can't explain something that hasn't been detected with science.

teacher: alankool you little bastard, go get your fetal pig and sit down and stfu.

you: You listen to me Mr. Slippyfist, if you don't give me my 100% that I earned on the first paper I'm going to the school nurse and I'm going to tell her that you hurt my genitals, you fvcking creep!

This has only been a dramatization. The politics and dynamics at work in the story are all true, however the names have been changed to protect the innocent, or not.

The socratic dialogue entails getting someone to say that they know something and then paint them into a corner with a series of questions about it that also show that they don't know what they are talking about.

Good luck on your first paper.

 

[KingofFah]

I do not know much about Darwinism other than people advancing the species. So is that the purpose of life?
Think about it. Let the theory of Darwinism continue thoughout eternity. It has no meaning, since we would continue to advance and die. Each person's individual life would have no meaning, but that person's life would affect the race in a way if they were helping the advancement.
We continue for infinity advancing and advancing, but for what purpose? The meaning of life in Darwinism has no meaning. Would a person eons ago have a much different life than one eons into the future? Not really. The culture might be more advanced (have you looked at society today? we have more ignorant fools breathing than ever before). You might say that we know much more and are able to understand harder concepts (probably 1% of the population is understand theory of relativity). What would I say in return? We know what we need to know to survive and are able to understand the concepts of the age. Tell me how many people today would starve to death if they were forced to live 1000 years ago (100 years ago, even). If we were advancing then surviving 1000 years ago would be simple. On this line of arguement, if you took someone from 1000 years ago and put them 1000 years back from their time, do you think they would survive? I would guess yes. This is all hypothetical, but if it were true it would prove that we are not advancing (a person from the past being able to survive in a time before his versus a person in our time not being able to survive 100 years back).

In my opinion, there is no way we are advancing.
This is not meant as a flame or anything of that sort. I am just posting my opinion, and I am always open-minded to a change in it. I only spend the time it takes to type this of actual thought process on what I have said, so I may have said something completely retarded. Feel free to point it out.

BTW, it seems that religions are created for people who cannot take the fact presented by science that there is no meaning to life.

I just read the post from TekViper
It perfectly explains science. People say science is fact. That is completely untrue. It is only our observation of how the universe works. When we see something that science cannot explain, it simply means we were wrong and need to investigate. There is a factual answer to why and how something happened. Will science ever be able to explain everything? No. Since there are an infinite number of 'things' in the universe, and we cannot even prove any of the things we are aware of to be true. That is how this ties in to his post. If you keep asking why to everything eventually have no answer. We do not know why, it just seems that way.

You either take life to be purposeless and can chose to do whatever we want or lay down and die, or we can see life to have a purpose that we believe in and try to follow what we have created for ourselves as best we can or defy the purpose that we have created.

Do philosophical math and physics have a purpose? No, but I love to discuss them and think about them.

Feel free to go off on me and my insane thought process I do not check back often, but I do check back.