A Worthy Response

A while ago I posted an article about looking at the worlds of physics and the cosmos through a biological perspective... in response to which an awesome response was written, I had been waiting and thinking about his post, trying to decide what to respond to it... and frankly all that comes to mind is.. bravo, its nice to hear the words of an honest real world scientist.

Todays spotlight: Anonymous comment number one.

In response to the article by Aaron Rowe...

"The Rad Scientist said...

Re:"At several points in his article, he argues that cosmologists are doing work that has been hijacked by creationists."
-Religion was the first cosmologist. The stars were believed to be gods, heavens, etc. long before we were able to look with a telescope, or track the motions. We started with a theory based on what we could observe, and the modified it as new observation were able to be made. The chariot of fire is a perfect example. Believed to be pulled across the sky by a god, now believed to be a burning ball of gas. We observed that it looked like it was on fire, but our explanation of the fire was incorrect. Cosmologic beliefs evolved as technology evolved. Religion has clung to it's belief and changed it to fit in with new observation the same as science has.




Re: "We've got the scientific structure and framework incorrect. We need a theory that is internally consistent. We can't do this without creating a biological understanding of space and time. This will require restructuring science so that biology is above physics."
-Biology=study of life
What defines life? While there are still problems with scientifically defining life, we of come to several criteria that define life. Time and space do not meet any of the criteria for being alive. So how can we biologically define them? Both are perceptions, perceived by humans and some animals. If there is no one to perceive time, does it exist? How can we apply biological theory to a perception?
I don't think that physics is above biology now. Both are schools of thought based on observation of natural events. Both seek to explain the natural phenomena that occurs (based on our perception of it). Physics applies to biology, and vice versa.


Re:"WN: In your article, you make the assertion that time and space do not exist. What do you mean by that?

Lanza: There is something very unusual about them. We can't put them in a marmalade jar and take them back to the lab for analysis. Space and time are forms of animal sense perception. Space and time are not objects or things -- they are forms of animal sense perception."
-My point exactly. If they don't exist, why would we apply the laws of observation based on things that do exist? Every law that we accept in biology came from the observations of existing things. We wouldn't apply the data from sand to make observations about rocks. They are different. The structure of the world and the structure of thought are different, too. You simply cannot expect to use laws based on observable world phenomena for anything created by thought.



Re:"Scientists continue to dismiss the observer as an inconvenience to their theories. Real experiments show that the properties of matter itself are observer-determined. A particle can go through one hole if you look at it, but if you don't look at it, it can actually go through more than one hole at the same time. Science has no explanation for how the world can be like that."
-The term "Science" is far to broad for such a statement. Hundred of experiments are done and results published in reputable journals regarding just such research. "Science" has not found a way to put them into laws, yet. There are thousands of theories out there, but we are still trying to figure out how to prove and disprove them. All of out scientific laws were at the beginning experimental stage at some point.
We should not try to fit things into labels before we understand them. We should try to understand them, so that we may design our models to fit what is truly happening. We should not create a system, and then try to fit the world into it."