From: maoh@phyast.nhn.uoknor.edu (Maureen O'Halloran)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Are we privileged observers?
Keywords: universe,earth, paradox
Date: 16 Aug 92 22:46:33 GMT
Organization: Engineering Computer Network, University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK, USA


>>julian@fraser.sfu.ca (Julian Shillcock) writes:

>>> . . .  But if science can be shown to
>>>need extra assumptions OUTSIDE the realm of science itself in order
>>> to explain
>>>the unvierse we observe then we might be justified in postulating God
>>>with some assurance.
>>> .....
>> Maureen O'Halloran writes ---
>>How about answers other than yes or no, such as that its meaningless
>>to speculate about things that can't be measured.  That's metaphysics,
>>not physics, and if by definition measurement is impossible then you
>>can't verify or disprove any theories.  So whats the point other than
>>personal amusement?

>Well, it is only us that cannot do the measurements, other alien
>scientists can do them quite well. Or are you saying that anything WE
>cannot measure does not exist? Also the measurements are only impossible
>now, if we wait the light will come to us (WOW, profound huh?) and we
>can then verify (or not) our theories in those regions. Consider
>the precession of Mercury's perihelion. Until we could measure it
>Newton's laws were a good theory, but then a different theory came
>along and an experiment was devised to test between them. Perhaps there
>are things beyond our current horizon in the universe that will be important
>later. Quasars (which I understand are the most distant objects we can
>observe, and are anomalously small for the power output) might be 
>things will be inexplicable until we change our theories. 

I guess I thought you were asking a more profound question than you
were.  Your statement seems to be that its "unscientific" to say that the laws
of physics hold when or where we're not looking.   The theory that the
"laws" of physics are universal is not simply an ad-hoc assumption,
but part and parcel of the theories (quantum electrodynamics, quantum field
theory, general relativity etc.) that predict many of the things we
can measure such as masses of fundamental particles, lifetimes for
decays of particles, etc.  If you want to propose _scientifically_
that this is not correct then you need to come up with a theory that
does as well at predicting what we do observe as well as giving a
mechanism for why things change with time or at some distance.  If you
want to say some unknown mechanism changes things 15 billion
lightyears away from us but at the same time keeps things constant
here there is no way to prove that is wrong perse, but also no reason
to propose that particular arbitrary change in the universe.  Einstein
speculated about the theory of relativity because he was trying to
explain particular experimental measurements such as the
Michelson-Morley experiments that showed that the velocity of light
was a constant, not measured relative to the rest frame of the earth.  

>>straightforward one with the fewest unproven assumptions is the best
>>choice, and time and time again this has proven to be true.  Anytime
>>you introduce a step like "and then a miracle occurred" you are
>>introducing an unproven assumption.

>Hmm, does this mean unique events cannot occur? Some things are
>just irreproducible but still occur. 

Yes, of course.  But if they are truly irreproducible then they cannot
be investigated scientifically.  

>Christians believe that Jesus Christ was born around 4 BC and was
>God. Just because it does not happen again is irrelevant here we
>need assumptions to understand what is going on. Atheists make the 
>a priori assumption that God does not exist so JC must be either
>fictional or just a person. Christians make the assumption that God
>does (or at least, may) exist so they can test whether JC claimed
>to be God, and was, or did not. Science will not tell us anything
				^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> about this situation. 
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Yes, exactly.  Miracles and interventions of God are by definition
outside the realm of science.  In that sense they are unscientific.  
Unscientific has become a bad word, so people take offense when told
they are being unscientific.  How does the quote go? Something like
"Faith is the reason that reason knows not".  Faith is unscientific.
That doesn't "prove" that faith is either false or true.

>Similarly science will not tell us about the regions
>beyond our observation. 

Not true, here we are speculating about the physical universe which is
"in the realm of science".  It is quite scientific to make extensions
of known theories because, as stated above, it would be very hard to
come up with a consistent set of physical laws that do anything other
that act universally. 

>I think the key point here is: does science
>exhaust the set of things that exist (or that we can know) in the universe
>(and elsewhere) or are there other things? I for one do not think
>this is a pointless question... 

>I believe in order that I may understand.        

>julian

I'm not arguing with your belief, just with the argument that all
speculations about (as yet) unobserved or unknown phenomena are
equally "scientific"

--- Maureen O'Halloran
Newsgroups: talk.origins,soc.culture.african.american,alt.rap