RE: How Do Scientists Know It's Space Expanding Not Galaxies Moving?
August 10, 2017 at 8:31 am
(This post was last modified: August 10, 2017 at 8:32 am by Edwardo Piet.)
Is there a difference?
I don't believe science can detect reality... only our experience/own models of reality. So IMO what is expanding is the parts that we can detect and do equations about. I think that the full reality behind it is infinite. I think the universe is eternal and energy changes but it's eternal and can't come out of nowhere. No I don't think this means god whatsoever. I think it's simple logic that every thing has always existed and nothing can come from nothing, ultimately speaking. The creations who use that argument to say "therefore God" are simply retards... the basic logic does actually make sense.
We, live in the world of phenomena and that is the world science tests. Our instruments are less limited than us but they are still phenomenological and limited... we still need to use our senses to use those instruments/tools. And yes there is also the theoretical mathematical side of science... but it has to be based on the empirical side. We don't pull information out of nowhere. It's logically impossible for science to ever test anything besides how we experience reality.
Sure you may say "But what about how we can figure out how bats, for example, see the world very differently to us."
Well, sure, but we still have to use our own senses and instruments to figure that out. And we have to see it from SOME perspective. We're still ultimately studying the EXPERIENCE of reality and not reality itself. Science can't test what the universe would be like if we weren't here to observe it. We can test what existed when the universe began... BUT THAT'S STILL US TESTING OUR OWN EXPERIENCE OF THE EVIDENCE LEFT BEHIND. What it is in reality outside of our experience and it's limits and the tools and theories behind it... may be quite different.
TL;DR: It's semantics. The evidence indictates that scientists experience clues and proofs of universal expansion that has gone on since the beginning.... but that's still studying their own experience of that evidence, ultimately, and BEHIND all that evidence, that is indeed correct, there may be a deeper reality that is by definition impossible to ever experience or have evidence of.
Fully truly objective reality is the noumenological world, the world of noumena as opposed to phenomena. And it's by definition "Whatever exists beyond experience" so by definition science can never have evidence of it.
I think in 'real' reality the unviverse is very much like the philosopher Paramedies thought it was:
Of course by 'real' reality I mean ultimately 100% objective reality that can never be experienced or perceived by any living being at all. It's merely a conclusion that can be reached through logic.
That's what I mean by 'real' reality because.... many people wouldn't call it 'real' if they can never ever experience it. It hardly applies to their life, or their reality, so it's certainly not practical reality. 'existence' is probably a better word. Existence without experience.
Einstein agreed, I reckon:
source:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/artic...-insanity/
Of course God didn't believe in an actual God. The "God" he spoke of was merely a metaphor for his belief that the universe made sense.
I don't believe science can detect reality... only our experience/own models of reality. So IMO what is expanding is the parts that we can detect and do equations about. I think that the full reality behind it is infinite. I think the universe is eternal and energy changes but it's eternal and can't come out of nowhere. No I don't think this means god whatsoever. I think it's simple logic that every thing has always existed and nothing can come from nothing, ultimately speaking. The creations who use that argument to say "therefore God" are simply retards... the basic logic does actually make sense.
We, live in the world of phenomena and that is the world science tests. Our instruments are less limited than us but they are still phenomenological and limited... we still need to use our senses to use those instruments/tools. And yes there is also the theoretical mathematical side of science... but it has to be based on the empirical side. We don't pull information out of nowhere. It's logically impossible for science to ever test anything besides how we experience reality.
Sure you may say "But what about how we can figure out how bats, for example, see the world very differently to us."
Well, sure, but we still have to use our own senses and instruments to figure that out. And we have to see it from SOME perspective. We're still ultimately studying the EXPERIENCE of reality and not reality itself. Science can't test what the universe would be like if we weren't here to observe it. We can test what existed when the universe began... BUT THAT'S STILL US TESTING OUR OWN EXPERIENCE OF THE EVIDENCE LEFT BEHIND. What it is in reality outside of our experience and it's limits and the tools and theories behind it... may be quite different.
TL;DR: It's semantics. The evidence indictates that scientists experience clues and proofs of universal expansion that has gone on since the beginning.... but that's still studying their own experience of that evidence, ultimately, and BEHIND all that evidence, that is indeed correct, there may be a deeper reality that is by definition impossible to ever experience or have evidence of.
Fully truly objective reality is the noumenological world, the world of noumena as opposed to phenomena. And it's by definition "Whatever exists beyond experience" so by definition science can never have evidence of it.
I think in 'real' reality the unviverse is very much like the philosopher Paramedies thought it was:
wikipedia Wrote:The traditional interpretation of Parmenides' work is that he argued that the every-day perception of reality of the physical world (as described in doxa) is mistaken, and that the reality of the world is 'One Being' (as described in aletheia): an unchanging, ungenerated, indestructible whole. Under the Way of Opinion, Parmenides set out a contrasting but more conventional view of the world, thereby becoming an early exponent of the duality of appearance and reality. For him and his pupils, the phenomena of movement and change are simply appearances of a changeless, eternal reality. This interpretation could settle because of various wrong translations of the fragments. For example, it is not at all clear that Parmenides refuted that which we call perception. The verb noein, used frequently by Parmenides, could better be translated as 'to be aware of' than as 'to think'. Furthermore, it is hard to believe that 'being' is only within our heads, according to Parmenides.
Of course by 'real' reality I mean ultimately 100% objective reality that can never be experienced or perceived by any living being at all. It's merely a conclusion that can be reached through logic.
That's what I mean by 'real' reality because.... many people wouldn't call it 'real' if they can never ever experience it. It hardly applies to their life, or their reality, so it's certainly not practical reality. 'existence' is probably a better word. Existence without experience.
Einstein agreed, I reckon:
Quote:Einstein himself thought so. He believed that there must exist hidden aspects of reality, not yet recognized within the conventional formulation of quantum theory, which would restore Einstein Sanity. In this view it is not so much that God does not play dice, but that the game he’s playing does not differ fundamentally from classical dice. It appears random, but that’s only because of our ignorance of certain “hidden variables.” Roughly: “God plays dice, but he’s rigged the game.”
source:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/artic...-insanity/
Of course God didn't believe in an actual God. The "God" he spoke of was merely a metaphor for his belief that the universe made sense.
