And how they provide major understanding on the limits of science.
This article explores the three realms of science. Before coming to scientific conclusions based on certain data, physicists should be aware of their scientific footing. Many good scientists are aware, but not everyone is on the same page.
The three realms of solid scientific footing are:
- That what cannot be known.
- Prime example of what cannot be known is the origin of energy. We do not have any data for it, nor can we ever get any data for it. Data is not available.
2. One-time events.
- Prime example is the origin of matter. We do have some data for it, and that means we can investigate what the results are telling us. The Big Bang was a one-time event involving the appearance of matter.
3. Repeatable evidence.
- This is the gold standard in science. Anything that can be recreated under the same circumstances is considered very solid evidence.
Interestingly, the first two realms are themselves also solid, and not just the realm of repeatable evidence. Yet the first two realms are not always recognized as solid.
—
A good number of physicists (not all) appear guilty of accepting just repeatable evidence as being truly scientific. Yet a simple example can show how that is not correct.
When an omelet comes into our view, we automatically know more about this reality than just the omelet. Even when there are no other indicators than the omelet itself, we know that the egg broke.
· The egg is no longer whole but the eggshells are not needed within our view to realize that the egg broke.
· We also do not need to investigate the contents of the omelet to know that the egg broke.
This is an example of a one-time event, and we can know it well because this one-time event can be repeated with any egg that we can get our hands on. Each time one can see that the same egg cannot be broken twice.
With the Big Bang we are not that lucky. There is no opportunity to establish a second Big Bang process to record what happens.
Breaking a piece of eggshell an additional time is not the same as breaking the egg, as a whole, an additional time. Therefore, while we may be able to see the formation of more matter coming into existence, this does not equate to an additional Big Bang.
Still, we know the results. We, ourselves, are part of the resulting outcomes. The results cannot be denied.
- One-time events lead to solid scientific conclusions and this can entail more than the specific information itself.
We know more than just the omelet itself. One-time events provide us greater scientific knowledge than just the results.
—
Having knowledge that there are aspects of our universe that can never be known is also a solid realm of science. To understand this, the footing has to be acknowledged.
For instance, we have no data about the beginning of time, the beginning of space, or the beginning of energy. Nothing at all.
So, a good scientist will not meld all aspects of the beginning of everything into one event, for instance, when the data only points to having some level of certainty about the beginning of matter. We cannot add anything on at will.
- Scientists should not be priests, not even for a moment.
The idea of a singularity, in another example, is an overstepping of melding everything into one event. Today, most physicists do not support the idea of a singularity any longer. Instead, the word singularity is now used to indicate how mathematics does not provide a comprehensible outcome for a situation.
Nevertheless, keeping the word singularity in place for a situation, in which physicists are scratching their heads, indicates that — if it were up to them — they would still meld everything into one event. The word singularity does not provoke the notion how all can be ultimately diverse, based on distinctly different foundations, right?
This structural aspect about the known unknowable reality of science is not the only consequence. The overarching word Universe can then also not be used much by the scientific community.
When there are knowable areas that cannot ever be known, then it is not possible to have a certain use at the highest level of reality, in this case the level of the universe.
As Gödel’s work seems to indicate, we cannot find any axioms that can remain truthful in essence at the largest of levels. Axioms are always truthful within their own formal systems only, and not at the largest setting.
- The universe is not a formal system.
The universe is not a scientific word therefore. That is, except for the most generic observations, such as the universe’s infinite nature and the incredible number of galaxies in it.
The foundation of the universe, in light of not-knowing the origin of energy, cannot be viewed from an overall perspective. Either the universe is viewed from a detailed material perspective (since we can work with the beginning for the occurrence of matter), or the universe is viewed from a generic perspective.
The generic perspective will not allow us to work with anything universal that would be correct throughout the universe.
—
Some could argue that one cannot know what one cannot know. Yet this is correct only from a generic perspective.
- From a scientific perspective, one must build on that what is known. In science, one does not place an unknown on the ground and then build out a theory from that foundation. That would be doublethink. On the ground, one can place known aspects, data, observations or facts, and then build out a theory about the known aspects, in which certain aspects may remain uncertain.
Again, the scientific formal system contains axioms, and it leaves space to theorize and hypothesize. Yet it does not leave space to start out with what is unknown. As such, that what is not knowable, such as the origin of energy, can itself be declared as a solid realm indeed in science.
What is unknowable will be located at the basis of the universe nevertheless, but the basis of the universe can then not be a scientific foundation providing certainty for all there is.
Recognize how the origin of matter can be a scientific subject matter, but notice how the origin of everything truly belongs to the priests.
- The phrase that the universe expands is a scientific fallacy. There is no universal data to support this very wild claim.
- Matter is moving across wider and wider swats of space, however, is correct in the Big Bang model. Only the correct format should be used.
What is unknowable is part and parcel of the scientific reality. The forever unknowable aspects of our scientific reality are staring us in the face like the eggshells missing from the omelet. We have to accept this solid realm of science.
It means that science, at best, is like an omelet. Science is not and cannot ever be the whole egg.
—
One last method to quickly show that the word Universe is non-functional.
- Write your name on an envelope, your address, city, country, planet Earth, Solar System, Milky Way, Universe, and hand the letter to the postal person.
The postal person will deliver the letter to the right person, in this case that is you. But the postal person mentions how, of the eight items, only seven items provided direction where to deliver the letter. The word Universe on the envelope provided nothing, gave no directions to the postal person at all. It is a non-functional word, a name tag that includes all there is at the other levels.
Another way to see this is through recognizing that the word Universe does not have any direct universal foundation.
- There are no universal units at the local level that in combination make up the whole of the universe. They do not exist.
The Scientific Reach will always fall short of understanding the larger picture. Yet recognizing that the overall reality contains an area that is forever unavailable for scientists is an important step forward.
