Printable View
Quote:
Originally Posted by g0zen
Quote:
Originally Posted by Meach
Art is a fundamental aspect of modern human existence (at least since Lascaux). If science cannot quantify art as an series of 'hard facts/evidence' could we then doubt its (science's) ability to 'formulate an explaination...for everything that we as humans can perceive'?Quote:
Originally Posted by sethsez
art can be quantified as much as anything mental.Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Meach
Yes, but what about art are you trying to ask?Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Meach
I mean, science has plenty to say about trees, but if you ask a scientist "tree?" they'll have no fucking clue what you're talking about.
The social or 'soft sciences' don't have the luxury of empirical data, however they can through numerous studies providing replicable results establish acceptable thoeries. So, there may be a time when we understand the human capacity to create and enjoy art. It won't be something done in a lab, but rather after gathering lots of information and formulating the right hypothesis.Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Meach
No, I'm giving science every benefit of the doubt. Limitless time and an infinite universe (although, sci-fi problem here: if the universe is infinite and constantly expanding, we'd never get to catalog it all b/c we came along 3 billion years or so after it got started).Quote:
Originally Posted by g0zen
If science will never reach a plateau, could we assume it won't b/c there will *always* be something that needs explanation?
Anyways, I should probably get to bed (or another beer...we'll see).
I would like to make a final note. I am not taking sides on this issue (just playing devil's advocate to try and challenge you guys). Good times.
One thing that the scientific process absolutely mandates is that results are predictable.Quote:
Originally Posted by g0zen
Could a theory ever be devised that predicts (cliche alert!) the next Sistine Chapel or Chopin?
maybe, but people are the result of their lives, and their DNA. I don't know if we could still be considered human if you were to try to regestered and collect data on everyone, all the time.Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Meach
We would probably have to evolve to do such a thing. At that point we may have no need for things like "sistine chapels" and "Chopins"
Technology is a form of knowledge, that was my point, if God is an interventionist then the wake of his interventions will be theoretically detectable if they actually cause a "difference"; but just because they are detectable doesn't mean they will be limited to our knowledge and observation horizon.Quote:
Originally Posted by frostwolf ex
Laplace's Demon is impossible because in order to know everything in the universe you would also have to know the contents of your own mind which contain a copy of the universe, and inside the copy of the universe in your mind is another copy of the universe in your mind's mind, etc .etc. Knowledge is at best is a limiting sum, you can never absolutely understand something you are a part of.Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Meach
Ask Tracer, he's got the Heisenberg siggy.
Not necessarily (just playing devil's advocate here).Quote:
Originally Posted by AstroBlue
If God/deity were to intervene in such a way that we could not detect it (how could we know what things were supposed to look like? we don't know the future) we would never know.
Think of it like this. We're all familiar with the God-as-watchmaker analogy: God winds up the world and lets it go. If God/deity were to construct the watch in such a way that we could not know when God is messing with things (and seeing how we're not all-knowing this would be pretty easy to do - if there is a God), how could we ever know when God is (or is not) messing with things?
True, I guess if God is an interventionist he could always just fuck with our instruments and minds... the cheeky bastard.
Oh God, the redheaded Prankster.