All science is materialistic

[Anomalocaris]

I don’t think he’s a crank, he was also not a particularly farsighted prognosticator of future in the sense that he saw things before any other did.

but he was a broad and thoughtful synthesizer of the informed prognostication about implications of some of some technological trends.

[polymath257]

So physicalism is simply the scientific consensus at the time and not an overarching viewpoint?

How would we tell if there is another force? If we create a model with such a force and it is tested and verified by observation, does it then become physical? If supersymmetry is a thing, that would imply many other 'forces' in the form of bosons corresponding to known fermions. I would hate to say such speculation is un-scientific merely because it postulates more forces.

I'd also point out that this has a similar problem to materialism. Where materialism was focused on the fermions (matter), this seems to be too focused on the bosons (forces).

Once again, the relevant criterion seems to be testability.

Something like Dark Energy (or even Dark Matter) may not be testable (in the sense that the force can be manipulated in the LHC or its successors) but only observable, say, in its effects.

But that is enough to allow testing in the scientific sense. By looking at situations that vary, we can tell whether our models work or not and thereby test them.

For example, we used the Bullet cluster of galaxies to test our ideas concerning dark matter as comparted to modified gravity theories.

  It may be, say, in the realm of the Multiverse (if such exists) that additional forces beyond the Four or Five exist, and even though they will never be observed, perhaps, they could be described, say, by some String Theory model.

And, unless those theories give very good predictions that differ from other theories and are verified by observation, I would find them very un-scientific.

There *are* multiverse theories that can be tested because the different 'universes' show gravitational effects on ours that can be detected.

  But, alas, it may be impossible to distinguish one theoretical model from a competing one, as both may be mathematically coherent, yet where one is right but the other wrong.  We will just never know.

If the two theories predict the same observations in all cases, then they would be considered as simply re-wordings of the same theory (as is the case in many cases in physics today).

If they give different predictions for observations, but we don't have the technical ability to carry out the observation, then we would say both are reasonable possibilities. We would then use which ever one is easiest to calculate with.

A phenomenon that is non-physical is magical; such phenomenon, if they exist, can certainly be observed (e.g., the spontaneous healing of an adult amputee) but they cannot be modeled.

And why not? We can still observe patterns in the phenomena, determine when and where the phenomenon occurs, can figure out, potentially how to control the phenomenon, which would make it scientific and perhaps even technology.

Once again, I am not saying this is the actual case. I am saying that science could work with it if it was the case.

[Jehanne]

And why not? We can still observe patterns in the phenomena, determine when and where the phenomenon occurs, can figure out, potentially how to control the phenomenon, which would make it scientific and perhaps even technology.

Once again, I am not saying this is the actual case. I am saying that science could work with it if it was the case.

This is where we part company and I would simply cite "irreconcilable differences". If a phenomenon happened (the amputee example) that simply shattered the Conservation Laws (Energy, Momentum, Angular Momentum), I would give up, once any reasonable possibility of fraud had been eliminated. I doubt that most of our religious friends would be going on about "separate Magisteria" much, either. Of course, you or anyone else could try to model magic, but, I think that there is going to be a practical problem when you or others try to replicate your results.

But, such is a bridge that no one has yet crossed, and, so, this conversation is purely hypothetical.

[Jehanne]

Thank you for this quote; it obviates any reservations that I had in viewing Clarke as a futurist crank, perhaps the High Priest of all of them.

Yeah, he predicted geosynchronous satellites, robotic surgery, medical telemetry, the internet, spam, digital porn, and telecommuting. What a crank.

Boru

I still think that he was a crank, just not an "infallible" one.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Yeah, he predicted geosynchronous satellites, robotic surgery, medical telemetry, the internet, spam, digital porn, and telecommuting. What a crank.

Boru

I still think that he was a crank, just not an "infallible" one.

Who claimed he was infallible??

Boru

[Jehanne]

I still think that he was a crank, just not an "infallible" one.

Who claimed he was infallible??

Boru

Yes, Clarke got some things right, but, at the same time he helped set the stage for the nutty futurism that makes me cringe whenever I come across it. Such makes for fun TV & movies, but, as I posted elsewhere in my climate thread, it's a gravely dangerous outlook.

In my opinion, physics & chemistry (and, probably, mathematics, also) are like economics, in that they are turning into very mature subjects, a trend that will continue over time; ditto for most other subjects. Some break-throughs will occur, but they will be fewer & fewer over time; most of which has been discovered is already with us. Things like controlled quantum computing or nuclear fusion are probably pipe dreams, never to be realized in practice.

[Anomalocaris]

i think your view that climate change will lead to extinction of human species is more crankish thant anything yet propounded by clark.

if you try to synthesize views of how future will turn out, some of it will be wrong.   even if what turned out to be wrong was most consequential, that is nonetheless an ex post wisdom.   it does not by itself refute the reasonableness of prognostication.

[Jehanne]

i think your view that climate change will lead to extinction of human species is more crankish thant anything yet propounded by clark

If Humanity burns all the fossil fuels that are available to be burned, then, yes, that will be the likely outcome.

[Anomalocaris]

i think your view that climate change will lead to extinction of human species is more crankish thant anything yet propounded by clark

If Humanity burns all the fossil fuels that are available to be burned, then, yes, that will be the likely outcome.

no it won’t    first of all, long before we come anywhere close to burning all the fossils fuel there is to burn, the impact of having burned what had already been burned up to that point will diminish our ability to burn any more, kill large number, maybe even majority of us, but not come within a million light year of actually making us go extinct.

the consequence of uncontrolled support or further anthropogenic greenhouse effect is ever greater misery and loss of ability to generate economic value on the one hand, and diminution of economic capacity to support further extraction and burning of fossil fuel on the other.

Doing things that that consumes great economic out out and in the process harm humanity in a societal scale creates its own checks and balances.    eventually there would not be enough economic output to support the same level of destructive activity.

[Anomalocaris]

and the greatest economic impact from further anthropogenic global warming will not come from the direct physical impact of changes to the environment to the capacity of human society to support itself.   well before that point is approached, the mix of our monkey brain and the fact that the impact and cost of global warming is not evenly distributed across different countries and within each country will lead to widespread war and demographic disruption.    the social consequences of the the war and strife will likely diminish our power continue to put GHG in the air even before the physical consequences of global warming begins to materially effect our economic output anc with it capacity to put more GHG into the air.

I think there is a good chance our anthropogenic global warming effort will be stopped by the consequence of a nuclear war which was caused in part by instability created by the uneven distribution of the effects of the anthropogenic global warming that had already occurred up to that point.