From: crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: Religion & Physics Don't Mix (?)
Date: 15 Oct 92 18:01:32 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <1992Oct15.141620.11197@asl.dl.nec.com> terry@aslws01.asl.dl.nec.com (Terry Bollinger) writes:
>Hi folks,
>
>In article <1992Oct15.001959.4312@sierra.com>
>ande@sierra.com (Ande Rychter) writes:
>
>> Religion and physics are two opposites.  The effect of physics on religion
>> is that of water on fire.  (The effect of religion on physics is the same.)

[discussion of the religious views of certain scientists deleted]

>Finally, a lot of the QM types of this century very definitely have
>strong religious beliefs, often of an Eastern flavor.  I once saw an
>intriguing book entitled (I believe) "The Quantum Philosophers," and
>it was full of very interesting musings by the founders of QM. (I might
>note that Richard Feynman was *not* listed -- he is a good example of
>the pro side of keeping religion and physics separate, I think.)

     In as much as the religious beliefs are not falsifiable, they are 
     not science.  This descent into mysticism by some of the founders
     of QM is abhorrent if presented with the imprimatur of science.

>Whether you like it or not, it's a bit hard to make absolute separations
>between physics and religious or at least philosophical tentants, because
>physics relies on certain assumptions that are not readily provable in
>the experimental sense.  Is the universe absolutely consistent in its
>laws at all locations?  That seems like a trivial "given" to us nowadays,

     Nothing is 'provable' in the experimental sense.  Certainly things
     are incrementally verifiable, and things scientific are falsifiable.
     However, in physics all of the assumptions are ultimately
     falsifiable at least through the consequences of using them
     in a certain framework to describe physical phenomena.

     Even the assumption that 'natural laws' are consistent across
     the universe is falsifiable under experiment, and is not
     necessarily a 'given'.  You can completely separate religion
     and science using this criterion.

>but it certainly wasn't a few hundred years ago.  Is it consistent in
>time -- that is, can you *prove* that the whole thing wasn't just made
>"ex nihilo" (or whatever) five seconds ago, complete with all of our
>memories of a non-existent past, by a supreme being with a with a
>profoundly perverse sense of humor?  It's easy to say "of course not,
>Occam's razor tells us that's silly," but if I was able to program a
>fully intelligent construction in my computer and create a virtual
>world around it, would it still sound so totally silly to assert that
>our assumptions of the nature of the universe are sometimes on rather
>shaky ground?

     This demonstrates rather well why such considerations are usually not
     those of science.  Science's underpinning is apparent physical
     phenomena, not the assumptions made in describing them.

>You have to have certain assumptions about the way things work to make
>problems tractable.  Historically, I don't think it's too far fetched
>to say that many folks derived their "basic sanity" assumptions as much
>from their religious beliefs and backgrounds as from their experiments.

     It makes no difference whether they derived them from their religion, 
     random plucks at Webster's, or the ethereal emanations of the 
     little black dog down the street.  If they are to be science, 
     they are falsifiable and have precious little to do with 
     religion.

                             dale bass
-- 
C. R. Bass                                           crb7q@virginia.edu
Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, Virginia                            (804) 924-7926
Newsgroups: sci.physics