Quote:
Originally Posted by dleviwing  Michael;
Though universe consciousness is an appealing concept and one I've pondered in the past, I remain steadfast to the scientific methodology of measurement in order to qualify it as known. Until then, we can only create a philosophy or belief of this concept. If we allow belief systems to be included in science, then science becomes just another religion. We are too close to that scenario now with Relativity, QM, and M-theory. I can only support you if you can demonstrate a method to measure it. |
Mr. Snyde understands the need to measure and define things in order to establish a concensus reality. The scientific method has done a great job of mapping out the universe with its numbers and symbols.
However Mr. Snyde tends to think that nothing can ever be truly defined. Everything is subject to further definition as long as there is a creative mind applying the energy to do so.
A question may be answered, but when that answer is examined, it is not difficult to ask three or more questions pertaining to it. Following this logic, one begins to see how measurement is only useful if at some point we collectively agree to stop measuring. This, however goes against the very nature of exploration and the principles of science. So we have a quandry.
Does this mean then that a Theory of Everything is impossible to define? Not if the definition encompasses this fundamental principle of the universe. Everything defined is subject to further definition.