Borders of science – objects more complex that ourselves?

0 users think it is non-scientific; after 15 it will be moderated.

Imagine a big construction and an engineer has moved a little detail from an one place of this construction to an other place.

What has moved? The little detail, could reply you. But what if I would say that the little detail has not moved but the rest of the construction has moved around the little detail? It could be also correct.

So the only reason why we choose to say that the detail rather than the rest of the construction has moved is size (sometimes we choose other criteria than size, such as weight, importance, price, complexity of construction, etc.)

If we would have a construction consisting of details of about equal size and the positions of details would change relatively each other, we would have not reason to prefer one of two details, which of two has moved and which has remained in its place!

Now let one of two details is yourself (or your brain, see here about variant with soul instead of brain, for these who believe in soul).

Let the other detail is some physical object. If the state of this object changes you could measure it and anticipate object has changed so and so. We anticipate such things because the state of our brain changes (for example when color of an object we see changes, change the neural signals in that part of our brain which control eyes).

But why we have chosen to count that it is the object changed, not our brain? I know only one reason for us to choose this of the two variants, because our brain is more complex than the object we see.

For example, change of color is a very simple physical process, but changes in that piece of our brains which perceive colors are very complex.

If we would count that it is our brain what has changed instead of the object which changed color, we would then be unable to think about what happened as our brains are too complex to analyze them.

That is we know much about colors and almost nothing about brains, we choose to analyze changes in such things which are simpler and known to us, because so it is simpler to analyze and so more reasonable.

But what if an object which we examine is equally complex or more complex than our own brains? Then I just see no reason to think that what has changed is that object, not our brain!

So different scientists looking at the same complex object could have different results of experiments, having done experiments without errors!

I deem that this (object as complex as our own brains) is a border for the science. The science, in my opinion, does not make sense for so complex objects (however certainly we can research simple properties of complex objects, for example we can weight human brain).

It anyway tends to be traditionally assumed among scientists that when we come to research of so complex objects, it is a border of science as we become unable to research (too complex for us). But I say more that just this, that we not only become unable to research, but have nothing to research in such cases, science ceases to make sense.

I deem state of so complex objects indefinite (it makes no sense to measure it as we have no reason to decide what we measure, the object or changes in our own brains) and science become an absurd outside its borders.

I am a Christian. I deem that here turns on the laws of faith, that is it happens what we believe to.

I believe that some day we will understand laws of faith and write the formulas of faith (like current scientific formulas). These may be mathematical formulas but not scientific formulas.

(1Cor 1:19-20) 19 For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, I will bring the discernment of the discerning to nothing. 20 Where is the wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the lawyer of this world? Hasn’t God made foolish the wisdom of this world?
(1Cor. 3:18-20) 18 Let no one deceive himself. If anyone thinks that he is wise among you in this world, let him become a fool, that he may become wise. 19 For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He has taken the wise in their craftiness. 20 And again, The Lord knows the reasoning of the wise, that it is worthless.

I deem this means that when we reach the limits of the World (I mean the above mentioned borders of science), then our science (wisdom) comically starts to research our own brains instead of what we are to research (wisdom turns into madness).

So inside borders of science (approximately) act laws of materialism (physics), outside the border which I have shown may act laws of subjective idealism (no physics, only mathematics, anything is possible). All this is concluded in objective idealism as we may consider ourselves as equal objects with the rest which need an external seer (God) to be measured and take a concrete sense.

Well, when we develop to higher knowledge level a particular cases of this problem may naturally cease, but there are two but:

  • What if what we study also develops and does it not slower or even faster than ourselves? (for example an other nation which may be of higher technological level)
  • Are there anything preventing us to develop into different directions and so to have several different sciences every of which is scientifically correct? If yes, what then is the sense of science which intends to find a single system of laws of nature?

Hey, scientists, can we develop theory of this and write concrete formulas? I deem that it makes sense to try (we need to analyze relations of two complex systems and compare complexity of changes).

Or maybe somebody already has a theory on this? Does anyone other have similar ideas?

(This my message is much just conjectures rather than a teaching, I do not claim to know this.)

0 users think it is non-scientific; after 15 it will be moderated.
Victor Porton

By Victor Porton

I am the chief editor of this journal and creator of this site.