An Afterlife? - It's Science Jim But Not As We Know It

In this post I look at what science has to offer and where it falls down. I suggest that science is good at analyzing the known universe but fails when we ask it to explain anything beyond that. Our understanding of time and space suggest that they are paradoxes which we can't live with, scientifically, but can't live without, either. This suggests that we need to find something very big which is currently missing from our understanding. It would have to be non material to avoid an impasse. In order to identify it we may have to ask "why" rather than "how".

My post was made on 14 Jul 2008 at 04:25 pm:

Hi Richard. This is really getting tricky now so I think we need to just backtrack a little. You will be relieved to know that I do not believe there is an alternate universe out there inhabited by some geyser called God, although we could have a different conversation about string theory but not now, please, not now. I think we are both agreed that we have quite enough on our hands trying to make sense of the one world we do know. In trying to make sense of it we have identified what most people feel happy to call "matter" and we believe that matter behaves in predictable ways which we can discover by applying techniques which we call science. I have no problem with that. However, these intrepid scientists often claim that everything can be explained by science. I have a couple of problems with that.

Firstly, science is about process, by which I mean it attempts to make sense of matter, starting from how we find it behaves in our current environment. It projects forward and backwards but it never goes completely beyond that spectrum. The furthest back it goes is to around the Big Bang or thereabouts. In formulating its theories it posits various explanations which it then tests out with experiments. Eventually, these experiments hit upon problems which cannot be explained by the theories it is trying to prove and so another scientist has to posit a different theory which, therefore, requires a further set of experiments. This so called scientific revolution proceeds by a process of trial and error, with the ultimate aim of one day understanding everything there is to know about how matter works.

Therefore, at any one time, current scientific understanding is about to be superceded by the latest scientific revolution. In other words science is, by definition, always wrong. It is, simply, a part of the process of understanding matter and very imperfect at it. Only a few years ago our fearless scientists discovered a form of matter which it called "dark matter" and subsequent investigations revealed that it accounts for about 85% of the matter in the universe. Moreover, virtually nothing is known about it. Now, our understanding of matter is very limited and our understanding of dark matter even more limited so we can hardly look to science to give us anything approaching knowledge which will, in the foreseeable future, be adequate enough to explain even what is going on in the material universe, let alone anything further than that. Yet the scientists confidently tell us matter will explain everything!

But there is a further problem. As long as science confines itself to the process side of science, all is well. What happens when we try to take that process to its ultimate? We all rely on 2 very important concepts in our understanding of matter and they are "time" and "space". I have tried to think scientifically without applying these concepts but I can't. Even using Einstein's theory of relativity there does seem to me to be a fundamental problem. Both these ideas are about measurement, finite measurement. If we can measure time and space then we can, logically, project this measurement into infinity. Travel, if you will, beyond the edge of the universe. Project time back before the beginning of time. At this point both ideas become paradoxes. It does not make sense to juxtapose finite space with infinity or time with eternity.

I draw 2 conclusions from this. The first is that the current scientific language is fundamentally inadequate. It not only does not but cannot explain what it sets out to explain. Secondly, there is something missing which is so huge that it blows an almighty hole in our understanding of everything.

Arguing from ignorance is not something any of us like to do, but I think it is the position we are in. So, how far can we go? Well, my answer is that there must be something radically different which explains what is going on, not more of the same. An alternate universe inhabited by God would not cut it. That would be just another material universe and would, therefore, re-create the infinite regress we already have encountered. So, we are looking for something non material, in order to escape the problems of materialism.

We are, of course, surrounded by things which are non material, but we are also surrounded by people who want to make out that they are, in fact, material. As long as we base our thinking on the material, the logical impasse will persist.

As you say, some very different issues arise when we replace the "how" of science with, for example, "why" and it may be that we have to answer these non scientific questions in order to have a context for the mere process of science.

Peter Rayner

Tags: afterlife science God string theory process spectrum Big Bang scientific revolution matter dark matter time space paradox infinite regress why

An Afterlife? - Science Has All The Answers

Another of my diversions follows, this time involving 2 other correspondents and so, once again, I am in the position of having to summarise their part of the debate. You can, however, read the exchange in full in its original location.

Gareth joined the discussion by pointing out that there are lots of things we don't know but that would just produce a long and imaginative list of unlikely items. Just as there is unlikely to be an invisible lizard living on his shoulder, so he can dismiss ideas of God, the soul, an afterlife and other anti-scientific ideas. He called this rationalism.

Gareth's post was made on 18 Jun 2008 at 02:38 pm. My reply was made on 18 Jun 2008 at 04:27 pm:

Hi Gareth. It always amuses me to find someone who dismisses an invisible lizard with a leap of faith, but thinks he's a rationalist, because it is rational to hold that the entire universe was caused by an exploding dot which is so powerful that it gives mankind the ability to make free decisions and have intentions. And as for logic I wonder if you have ever heard of either inductive or deductive logic or pondered what happens when cause and effect in science trace backwards into an infinite regression. Oh, and by the way, Gareth, that's not a lizard on your shoulder - it's a chicken - or is it an egg?

Peter Rayner

Gareth made a spirited reply by stating that he believed in science because it is supported by data and that the whole point of science is to explain everything. Otherwise we are at the mercy of superstition and dogma.

Gareth's post was made on 19 Jun 2008 at 12:57 am.

Tim replied to Gareth with a moral argument for life after death. He suggests that if people just die then it's "not fair". He suggests a moral force which makes some things true and others false and if there is no such force then he asks what it means to say something is true.

Tim's post was made on 19 Jun 2008 at 01:37 am.

Gareth replied to this somewhat oddly claiming, on the one hand, that there is nothing outside the structure which we impose and, on the other, that we are bound by data.

Gareth's post was made on 19 Jun 2008 at 03:08 am.

Tim came back with the claim that the universe has its own moral structure and that there is such a thing as truth which we are, therefore, morally obliged to follow. He challenges Gareth to show why anyone should believe his theory of truth.

Tim's post was made on 19 Jun 2008 at 04:08 am.

Gareth's reply, again somewhat oddly, is to seek the physical whereabouts of this moral structure. He then presents us full on with his, dare I say it, dogma that science has to be everything, although we are not told why this is so.

He then reveals his utilitarian view of morality, namely, that we make rules in order to run societies.

Gareth's post was made on 19 Jun 2008 at 05:35 am.

My reply to these exchanges follows. It consists of an attack on the "science is everything" theory by arguing that science is merely an attempt to understand the process which followed the big bang. Also, our knowledge of the "matter" which resulted from this is very limited. Furthermore, we think in time and space, yet both these concepts would seem to be paradoxical. Human beings behave, habitually, in ways which science is unable to explain by their expressions of intentional behaviour. There is a further problem inasmuch as science proceeds by testing its own theories to destruction and is, therefore, always based on uncertain knowledge. Finally, the implication of the entirely materialistic world is determinism.

My post was made on 19 Jun 2008 at 05:46 am:

Hi Gareth. Thanks for seeing the funny side of it but get serious now, we must.The data you refer to is a theory about process, that's all. It is an attempt to make sense of an expanding universe. The theory struggles to take account of dark matter which, it seems, accounts for some 80% of the stuff of which the universe is made and about which we know very little. It also requires us to believe that our theory requires the concepts of space and time both of which have to be made to disappear up their own black holes in order to avoid a double infinite regress. If space measures limited distance then what lies beyond the furthest point? If time began with the big bang then where did the matter in the big bang originate? I can see that science is making progress within the confines of how stuff works within our world and universe of worlds but I don't see it getting close to the big issues of how the process first began and for that matter why. Nor do I see how mere matter leads to human will and action. How do we come to have intentions? Matter can't do that. You say nothing lives outside science. I say we human beings live outside science - all the time. Almost everything we get up to is outside science. We need to get our lives back. You say the remit of science is to explain everything. I say the ultimate remit of science is to explain the process of matter, just like a builder constructs a house. He knows everything about it in process terms but the truth is he is following someone elses plan - another issue entirely. But there is a further problem with science. The way in which science proceeds is to posit a theory and test it to destruction. The well known phenomenon then takes place - the scientific revolution - followed by a new theory which is then, itself, tested to destruction. Fine for the scientists, useless for epistemologists because the inevitable conclusion is that science, by definition, is always wrong. Worse still, even if you suceed in doing away with everything except matter then how do you avoid living in a deterministic world in which everything has already been decided by the mother of all explosions?

Peter Rayner

I then replied to Tim, agreeing with his right to pose the moral universe proposition.

My post was made on 19 Jun 2008 at 05:58 am:

Hi Tim. I love your line of thinking. This is so far removed from the hard materialism of your opponent that it simply cannot be consumed by science. Why not pose the question "What if we live in a moral universe?" Does that not so clearly point out the limitations of science which has to exclude it, not because it's wrong, but because it's not scientific. A perfectly valid question, nevertheless.

Peter Rayner

Tim then decides to look at the utilitarian argument and asks what if it turns out that society works better if people believe in an afterlife. On utilitarian grounds we would have to believe in it, even if it were not true.

Tim's post was made on 19 Jun 2008 at 06:24 am.

Gareth's reply was to re-assert his view that science can and will, one day, explain everything. He also indicated that a further big bang along exactly the same lines would produce the same results and that would not make the world deterministic although he offers no explanation for this statement.

Gareth's post was made on 19 Jun 2008 at 06:28 am.

Gareth made 6 more posts, starting with a reply to Tim's moral argument but all his replies are basically a denial of anything outside his view that science has all the answers.

The discussion then returned to the analogy of the chinese room...

Tags: afterlife science God soul rationalism exploding dot intentions inductive deductive logic infinite regression data dogma moral argument structure utilitarian process big bang matter determinism