Quote:
Originally Posted by quanta07  Hi dipayanker,
I believe it is a matter of education, social influences, and personal goals in the pursuit of knowledge. If you grow up in a 'shoebox', then that box is all you know.
In a quest for the theory of everything, the scientic road leads to ANSWERS...
whereas the philosophical road leads to more questions.
The following is for everyone else.
I do not like discussing science with philosophers. Discusions never end, solutions never found. Invariably there are people that quote philosophers in a strange attempt to explain science.
The use of the term 'reality' is questioned in this forum.
Is what we see 'real' of 'illusionary'?
For me, Life, being alive, happiness is illusionary. Our environment from which we evolved is real.
Is what we see an illusion?.........NO. That tree you hit with your car is not an illusion.
There will never be a TOE from any philosopher.
They project uncertainty by their very nature of course study.
I believe Science has no use for these people.
Perceptions of our world are based in knowledge we aquire about that world.
Perceptions of mankind, such as conscious awareness, illusionary or real, have no place in the study of nature.
These two studies have been separated in our college courses, because they must remain mutually exclusive, two different subject matters.
Please stop projecting the results of one course of study onto another.
Study the mind if you wish, but do not project what this study yields into the study of environment. This is a serious falacy that has been minimized by philosophers down through the ages.
These are my views....
and to quote another philosopher...'and thats all I have to say about that'.....Forrest Gump
Happy Thoughts.............Q7 |
Q7...
It is partially for this reason (and to show the breadth of a bona fide innovator"s imagination) that I featured material about the work of distinguished physicist, John Wheeler, in my post just before your last one. I quote the beginning of that post:
"In order to expand the present discussion from the point of view of the scientific community rather than the philosophical one, I am including excerpts from two sources. I would particularly recommend reading the entire Discover Magazine article about John Wheeler's work." (link below)
http://discovermagazine.com/2002/jun...tart:int=0&-C=
A couple of other comments...if you can't question how the practice of science is done, evolves and improves (or not), how will the practice ever progress? I think that a TOE can only come from someone who is able to take the long view of what a true TOE should include. A TOE should not speak to physicists and mathematicians only.
Best,
not2too