• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

What is existence in science?

S

Sanluis

Member
Joined
Jun 10, 2017
Messages
66
Reaction score
29
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
I am trying to find out how science understands existence, so I googled this phrase: "what is existence in science?

And here are the hits from google in page 1:


Google: “what is existence in science?”

About 207,000,000 results (0.90 seconds)
No results found for "What is existence in science?".
Results for What is existence in science? (without quotes):
Search Results

Can Science Prove The Existence Of God? - Forbes
www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/.../can-science-prove-the-existence-of-go...
Jan 20, 2017 - There's an argument that many people make: that the natural world, and humanity's existence in the Universe, point towards a divine creator ...

Existence - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existence
Existence is commonly held to be that which objectively persists independent of one's presence ..... "The Seven Pillars of Life". Science. 295 (5563): 2215–2216. doi:10.1126/science.1068489. PMID 11910092. Jump up ^ The American Heritage ...

Does God Exist - Six Reasons to Believe that God is Really There - Is ...
https://www.everystudent.com/features/isthere.html
2 Before you look at the facts surrounding his existence, ask yourself, If God does exist, ... Scientists are convinced that our universe began with one enormous ...

Edward O. Wilson: Science, Not Philosophy, Will Explain the Meaning ...
bigthink.com/.../science-not-philosophy-will-explain-the-meaning-of-life-with-edwar...
Biologist Edward O. Wilson tackles the meaning of life and existence. ... what we are, and where we're going is a task best suited to science, not philosophy.

Arguments why God (very probably) exists - The Conversation
theconversation.com/arguments-why-god-very-probably-exists-75451
May 10, 2017 - There remain many mysteries that are beyond science. Does that mean that a God truly exists? A scholar gives reasons for this possibility.

10 Scientists Who Claim to Have Proof about the Existence of God ...
10 Scientists Who Claim to Have Proof about the Existence of God - ODDEE
Jan 7, 2014 - Check out this list about theories and tests conducted by scientists from different fields that are intended to demonstrate the existence of God, ...

What Science Says About the Existence of God - The New American
https://www.thenewamerican.com/.../22901-what-science-says-about-the-existence-of-...
Apr 8, 2016 - Usually, the arguments are premised on the idea that, scientifically speaking, it is not logical for a god to exist: No scientific test has proven the ...

Scientists run calculations to PROVE the existence of God | Science ...
www.express.co.uk › News › Science
Jan 23, 2017 - SCIENTISTS have 'confirmed' the existence of God after proving a mathematician's theory which suggests that there is a higher power.

Does God Exist? Some Scientists Think They Have Proof - Newsweek
www.newsweek.com/god-faith-religion-science-does-god-exist-existence-god-608897
May 14, 2017 - The question of whether a god exists is heating up in the 21st century.

Scientifically, God Does Not Exist - ThoughtCo
https://www.thoughtco.com › ... › Religion and Spirituality › Atheism and Agnosticism
Feb 17, 2017 - It is possible to say that, scientifically, God does not exist - just as science is able to discount the existence of many other alleged beings.

Searches related to What is existence in science?
existence philosophy
scientific proof of god
scientific proof that god exists
god does not exist
does god exist debate
logical proof that god does not exist
proof god is real
is god real or fake
12345678910 Next
​


From a reading of the entries in page 1 I seem to get the impression that with scientists who take up the matter of existence they deal with God exists or not.

What do you guys here say?
 
Science is a form of empiricism, interested in experience to begin with, i.e., the deliverances of sensory data. What we experience through the senses exists. Based on this ground-level epistemology, science then proceeds, by way of inference and technological ways of sensing more acutely, into realms of existence unavailable to ordinary perception. There they make further inferences to even deeper realms removed from ordinary experience. All the while testing their inferences.
 
As far as I can tell, with the exception of quantum mechanics (and to lesser extent, particle physics in general), science isn't interested in the question of what it means to exist, and so scientists tend to rely on an intuitive understanding of existence. Quantum mechanics gets into existence just because it questions the fundamental properties of matter, and presents a view that's different enough from the intuitive view to require actual construction of an account. That is, physicists before whenever Bell published on his inequality generally thought of existence according to the intuitive view. After Bell's inequality, the substantive picture of what matter really is stood in radical disagreement with the intuitive view, and so physicists studying quantum mechanics had to formulate a new view from scratch. But most physicists still maintain the intuitive view.

Now, I do think most scientists (surveys I've read suggest a little more than half) think that only matter (mass and energy) exist. This is because they also tend to identify the categories designated by "material" and "observable," with the methodological assumption that what is not observable even in principle does not exist. (note: this doesn't mean that, say, the core of the earth, or dinosaurs, don't exist--those are both observable in principle, just not in fact). So already you can see that there's some metaphysics going on, it's just that it's basically assumed and not really thought through by most scientists.

Anyway, just a few thoughts, based on my reading of and conversations with a variety of scientists--I mostly chat with folks working in the neuro- and cognitive sciences, and then a few physicists. I tend to read in those and related areas.
 
Did anyone here exist before they were born?
 
Sanluis said:
How science understands existence?
Click to expand...
Define what you mean by “existence”?
Do you mean how does it speak to how energy and matter came about from nothing?

Short answer: It didn’t come from nothing. It doesn't have to come from anything.

Longer answer: As space-time is a dimension of relative energy. And space-time differentiation is the entire basis of causation. Energy becomes one of few objects in the universe outside space-time and thus absent of a need for causation which requires time and space to exist.

It is observable then that “energy is neither created nor destroyed only moved from one form into another” since we are energy observing itself and thus eternal energy always appears infinity divisible in a finite observational perspective; energy as a single unit objective of this lens must thus be conceived in a realm absent origin:eternal. This is why it can be view as a particle like unit or a continuous unit simultaneously. Energy can be observed relative to itself which in such contrast allows space-time to be assigned, then an origin defined and lastly a causation determined.
 
Once you have defined the word existance you will have answered your question.

The answer will be different depending upon your definition.
 
Existence is perception.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.
 
Slingshot Bob said:
Yes, assuming eternity is a reality, birth and death are just names for "transistioning"
Click to expand...

Slingshot Bob:

What do you mean by "eternity"? An immortal soul or a very, very, very long (infinite) period of time?

If you mean the former, then that is a declaration of faith and I can't argue with that except to offer one caveat. If a short-lived insect living on a tree perceives that the tree is unchanging and thus eternal, that perception is a function of the limited perception of the insect and not the static eternity of the tree which though long-lived is not eternal and unchanging. Both faith and reason are slaved to perception.

If you mean the later then I will argue a bit. "Time" is a human construct to measure the rate of perceived change around us. We created time. Thus time did not exist before human intelligence created it and began teaching it to new generations and it will cease to exist when humans die out or learn to perceive their surrounding differently. Thus before you were conceived and after you die there is no time. Stepping out of our human perspective for a moment, time is an illusion. To us the last Big Bang may have occurred about 13.7 billion years ago but to a photon generated by that Big Bang no time has passed due to time-dilation at the speed of light. In essence the Big Bang is happening right now as far as photons are concerned. The linearity of time is another illusion which we have created which photons and electrons ignore. The single slit experiments performed at the beginning of the last century show that such sub-atomic phenomena can retroactively change their behaviour due to interference by human observation. Whether that change of behaviour is the result of the particle-wave altering its own behaviour or our own inability to fully perceive what's going on is up for debate. But what is not so debatable is that our perception creates the universe around us and thus determines our existence in that ersatz universe. Don't get me started on quantum entanglement, John Bell and the illusion of space/space-time. That's a rabbit hole which just unnerves me!

Cheers.
Evilroddy.
 
Last edited:
Evilroddy said:
Slingshot Bob:

What do you mean by "eternity"? An immortal soul or a very, very, very long (infinite) period of time?

If you mean the former, then that is a declaration of faith and I can't argue with that except to offer one caveat. If a short-lived insect living on a tree perceives that the tree is unchanging and thus eternal, that perception is a function of the limited perception of the insect and not the static eternity of the tree which though long-lived is not eternal and unchanging. Both faith and reason are slaved to perception.

If you mean the later then I will argue a bit. "Time" is a human construct to measure the rate of perceived change around us. We created time. Thus time did not exist before human intelligence created it and began teaching it to new generations and it will cease to exist when humans die out or learn to perceive their surrounding differently. Thus before you were conceived and after you die there is no time. Stepping out of our human perspective for a moment, time is an illusion. To us the last Big Bang may have occurred about 13.7 billion years ago but to a photon generated by that Big Bang no time has passed due to time-dilation at the speed of light. In essence the Big Bang is happening right now as far as photons are concerned. The linearity of time is another illusion which we have created which photons and electrons ignore. The single slit experiments performed at the beginning of the last century show that such sub-atomic phenomena can retroactively change their behaviour due to interference by human observation. Whether that change of behaviour is the result of the particle-wave altering its own behaviour or our own inability to fully perceive what's going on is up for debate. But what is not so debatable is that our perception creates the universe around us and thus determines our existence in that ersatz universe.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.
Click to expand...

I define eternity as "energy is neither created nor destroyed", just in an eternal state of flux. The only constant, is change. Nothing is born nor dies, things just ARE.

I agree with your assessment of time, I believe we can only exist (physically) in the present. Yesterday exist only in our memory, tomorrow is just a speculative thought. The physical body only exist in the present.
 
Sanluis said:
I am trying to find out how science understands existence, so I googled this phrase: "what is existence in science?

...snipped to shorten...

Does God Exist - Six Reasons to Believe that God is Really There - Is ...
https://www.everystudent.com/features/isthere.html
2 Before you look at the facts surrounding his existence, ask yourself, If God does exist, ... Scientists are convinced that our universe began with one enormous ...

Edward O. Wilson: Science, Not Philosophy, Will Explain the Meaning ...
bigthink.com/.../science-not-philosophy-will-explain-the-meaning-of-life-with-edwar...
Biologist Edward O. Wilson tackles the meaning of life and existence. ... what we are, and where we're going is a task best suited to science, not philosophy.

Arguments why God (very probably) exists - The Conversation
theconversation.com/arguments-why-god-very-probably-exists-75451
May 10, 2017 - There remain many mysteries that are beyond science. Does that mean that a God truly exists? A scholar gives reasons for this possibility.

10 Scientists Who Claim to Have Proof about the Existence of God ...
10 Scientists Who Claim to Have Proof about the Existence of God - ODDEE
Jan 7, 2014 - Check out this list about theories and tests conducted by scientists from different fields that are intended to demonstrate the existence of God, ...

What Science Says About the Existence of God - The New American
https://www.thenewamerican.com/.../22901-what-science-says-about-the-existence-of-...
Apr 8, 2016 - Usually, the arguments are premised on the idea that, scientifically speaking, it is not logical for a god to exist: No scientific test has proven the ...

Scientists run calculations to PROVE the existence of God | Science ...
Latest UK and World News, Sport and Comment | Express.co.uk › News › Science
Jan 23, 2017 - SCIENTISTS have 'confirmed' the existence of God after proving a mathematician's theory which suggests that there is a higher power.

Does God Exist? Some Scientists Think They Have Proof - Newsweek
Does God Exist? Some Scientists Think They Have Proof
May 14, 2017 - The question of whether a god exists is heating up in the 21st century.

Scientifically, God Does Not Exist - ThoughtCo
https://www.thoughtco.com › ... › Religion and Spirituality › Atheism and Agnosticism
Feb 17, 2017 - It is possible to say that, scientifically, God does not exist - just as science is able to discount the existence of many other alleged beings.

Searches related to What is existence in science?
existence philosophy
scientific proof of god
scientific proof that god exists
god does not exist
does god exist debate
logical proof that god does not exist
proof god is real
is god real or fake
12345678910 Next
[/indent]


From a reading of the entries in page 1 I seem to get the impression that with scientists who take up the matter of existence they deal with God exists or not.

What do you guys here say?
Click to expand...

A few things.

First, which has already been stated, is that you need to be clear about what you mean by existence? By the way, I think that you have tried to be clear by using the question of the existence of gods, implying that you are discussing a physical existence rather than the meaning of life however, I would suggest being careful not to inadvertently switch meanings as it will frustrate people.

Secondly, Science is a method of exploring what exists so it can only consider what science can demonstrate exists.

Being skeptical of claims about reality is not synonymous with science but, there is commonality in the thought process. So, when you hear the words, 'Science can't explain...' you can be fairly sure that you are about to be bombarded with a string of philosophical ramblings that are going to make epistemological points about Science that scientists already understand and acknowledge as a limitation of the method. The problem is not Science, it is people that conflate Science with materialism and skeptical and rational thinking for reasons that usually become clear when you figure out their religion. They are not interested in trying to believe as many 'true' things as they can, they are simply interested in using philosophical mental masturbation about ignorance in order to cast doubt in your mind about rejecting their absurd claims.

Guess what? You'll be shocked to learn that, Science can't explain Leprechauns but, our apparent lack of obsession with that fact suggests that something else is going on. I don't need to use the scientific method to figure out that if you assert that Leprechauns exist then it is up to you to demonstrate that they do, if you can't show it then you don't know it.
 
shrubnose said:
How can anyone perceive that which has never been proven to exist?

Fill us in.
Click to expand...

shrubnose:

We do it all the time. We create cognitive fictions and laminate them over a poorly understood "reality" which our limited senses and our limited instrumentation do not allow us to fully perceive and understand. We then experiment, examine, debate and modify our cognitive fictions as our understanding and instrumentation change. In essence we don't experience reality but create a facsimile of it in our heads and senses. We are the creators of what we perceive in a bio-centric feed-back loop of observation, perception and understanding. We observe, analyse, alter our understanding, alter our perception, re-observe, re-analyse, once again alter our understanding and perception, ad infinitum until we have gotten to our present state of understanding by creating a succession of progressive ersatz gestalts all along the way of human existence.

What we experience is our own human-centric reality and not the Ur-reality which really surrounds us and lies below our capacity to perceive, comprehend and understand at any given moment in our intellectual trek towards understanding. Who has really experienced the universe as it truly is? From super strings, to quarks, to atoms, to molecules, to energy, to forces, to fields, to vacuum, to space-time, to neutron stars, to black holes, to galaxy-gluing dark matter, to dark energy to universal expansion; these are all ideas/fictions which we have created to explain our perceived reality. They aren't real. They are likely not reality itself but rather a mythology; just our own feeble attempts to describe the Ur-reality which we are partially blind to and therefore cannot fully comprehend. Whether we sit around a campfire staring into the heavens and create a story to explain our surroundings or we camp around a hadron-supercollider and stare into instruments to create a new story to explain our surroundings does not really matter. Both acts are syntheses based on limited perception, limited empirical data and thus limited comprehension and therefore both are flawed mythologies created by us and taught/shared with our fellow humans. That does not make the quest invalid but it does force us to acknowledge that our shared experiences and comprehension are bumbling attempts to explain our surroundings.

We ourselves are the greatest fiction of all. We think of ourselves as individuals, descrete from other beings and different and separate from the universe around us. But we are not. We are communities of more fictions - of cells, polymers, and other types of matter using, sharing and transforming energy in a personal ecosystem as bewilderingly grand as the universe we distinguish ourselves from. We take in matter and energy and shed the same and are thus networked into the world and universe around us and in ways we don't yet comprehend let alone understand. In essence we are the universe itself becoming self-aware but still too inchoate and primitive to do a very good job at perceiving and describing ourself. We are many and yet we are all one, each of us a proto-cell in a larger global or universal organism which is struggling towards better self-awareness and sentience. We are the primitive macro-neurons and macro-glial cells of a widening universal sentience and our instruments, computers and artificial intelligence are the latest augments in the struggle for a wider sentience and awareness. Thus existence is perception but not necessarily accurate perception of a suspected or hypothetical reality.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.
 
Last edited:
Evilroddy said:
shrubnose:

We do it all the time. We create cognitive fictions and laminate them over a poorly understood "reality" which our limited senses and our limited instrumentation do not allow us to fully perceive and understand. We then experiment, examine, debate and modify our cognitive fictions as our understanding and instrumentation change. In essence we don't experience reality but create a facsimile of it in our heads and senses. We are the creators of what we perceive in a bio-centric feed-back loop of observation, perception and understanding. We observe, analyse, alter our understanding, alter our perception, re-observe, re-analyse, once again alter our understanding and perception, ad infinitum until we have gotten to our present state of understanding by creating a succession of progressive ersatz gestalts all along the way of human existence.

What we experience is our own human-centric reality and not the Ur-reality which really surrounds us and lies below our capacity to perceive, comprehend and understand at any given moment in our intellectual trek towards understanding. Who has really experienced the universe as it truly is? From super strings, to quarks, to atoms, to molecules, to energy, to forces, to fields, to vacuum, to space-time, to neutron stars, to black holes, to galaxy-gluing dark matter, to dark energy to universal expansion; these are all ideas/fictions which we have created to explain our perceived reality. They aren't real. They are likely not reality itself but rather a mythology; just our own feeble attempts to describe the Ur-reality which we are partially blind to and therefore cannot fully comprehend. Whether we sit around a campfire staring into the heavens and create a story to explain our surroundings or we camp around a hadron-supercollider and stare into instruments to create a new story to explain our surroundings does not really matter. Both acts are syntheses based on limited perception, limited empirical data and thus limited comprehension and therefore both are flawed mythologies created by us and taught/shared with our fellow humans. That does not make the quest invalid but it does force us to acknowledge that our shared experiences and comprehension are bumbling attempts to explain our surroundings.

We ourselves are the greatest fiction of all. We think of ourselves as individuals, descrete from other beings and different and separate from the universe around us. But we are not. We are communities of more fictions - of cells, polymers, and other types of matter using, sharing and transforming energy in a personal ecosystem as bewilderingly grand as the universe we distinguish ourselves from. We take in matter and energy and shed the same and are thus networked into the world and universe around us and in ways we don't yet comprehend let alone understand. In essence we are the universe itself becoming self-aware but still too inchoate and primitive to do a very good job at perceiving and describing ourself. We are many and yet we are all one, each of us a proto-cell in a larger global or universal organism which is struggling towards better self-awareness and sentience. We are the primitive macro-neurons and macro-glial cells of a widening universal sentience and our instruments, computers and artificial intelligence are the latest augments in the struggle for a wider sentience and awareness. Thus existence is perception but not necessarily accurate perception of a suspected or hypothetical reality.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.
Click to expand...

It works, it produces results, when it stops doing so come back and tell me about it.
 
This video offers some insight into how we are creating the universe through laziness and the economy of effort.

The Zipf Mystery - YouTube

Cheers.
Evilroddy.
 
Sanluis said:
I am trying to find out how science understands existence, so I googled this phrase: "what is existence in science?

And here are the hits from google in page 1:


Google: “what is existence in science?”

About 207,000,000 results (0.90 seconds)
No results found for "What is existence in science?".
Results for What is existence in science? (without quotes):
Search Results

Can Science Prove The Existence Of God? - Forbes
www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/.../can-science-prove-the-existence-of-go...
Jan 20, 2017 - There's an argument that many people make: that the natural world, and humanity's existence in the Universe, point towards a divine creator ...

Existence - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existence
Existence is commonly held to be that which objectively persists independent of one's presence ..... "The Seven Pillars of Life". Science. 295 (5563): 2215–2216. doi:10.1126/science.1068489. PMID 11910092. Jump up ^ The American Heritage ...

Does God Exist - Six Reasons to Believe that God is Really There - Is ...
https://www.everystudent.com/features/isthere.html
2 Before you look at the facts surrounding his existence, ask yourself, If God does exist, ... Scientists are convinced that our universe began with one enormous ...

Edward O. Wilson: Science, Not Philosophy, Will Explain the Meaning ...
bigthink.com/.../science-not-philosophy-will-explain-the-meaning-of-life-with-edwar...
Biologist Edward O. Wilson tackles the meaning of life and existence. ... what we are, and where we're going is a task best suited to science, not philosophy.

Arguments why God (very probably) exists - The Conversation
theconversation.com/arguments-why-god-very-probably-exists-75451
May 10, 2017 - There remain many mysteries that are beyond science. Does that mean that a God truly exists? A scholar gives reasons for this possibility.

10 Scientists Who Claim to Have Proof about the Existence of God ...
10 Scientists Who Claim to Have Proof about the Existence of God - ODDEE
Jan 7, 2014 - Check out this list about theories and tests conducted by scientists from different fields that are intended to demonstrate the existence of God, ...

What Science Says About the Existence of God - The New American
https://www.thenewamerican.com/.../22901-what-science-says-about-the-existence-of-...
Apr 8, 2016 - Usually, the arguments are premised on the idea that, scientifically speaking, it is not logical for a god to exist: No scientific test has proven the ...

Scientists run calculations to PROVE the existence of God | Science ...
www.express.co.uk › News › Science
Jan 23, 2017 - SCIENTISTS have 'confirmed' the existence of God after proving a mathematician's theory which suggests that there is a higher power.

Does God Exist? Some Scientists Think They Have Proof - Newsweek
www.newsweek.com/god-faith-religion-science-does-god-exist-existence-god-608897
May 14, 2017 - The question of whether a god exists is heating up in the 21st century.

Scientifically, God Does Not Exist - ThoughtCo
https://www.thoughtco.com › ... › Religion and Spirituality › Atheism and Agnosticism
Feb 17, 2017 - It is possible to say that, scientifically, God does not exist - just as science is able to discount the existence of many other alleged beings.

Searches related to What is existence in science?
existence philosophy
scientific proof of god
scientific proof that god exists
god does not exist
does god exist debate
logical proof that god does not exist
proof god is real
is god real or fake
12345678910 Next
​


From a reading of the entries in page 1 I seem to get the impression that with scientists who take up the matter of existence they deal with God exists or not.

What do you guys here say?
Click to expand...

I think you have confused Philosophy with Science.

A Philosopher accepts perception as reality. A Scientist has a less generous range of interpretation.

Proving existence and believing existence require vastly different levels of review.

For instance, many believe that Anthropologically emitted atmospheric CO2 is the primary driver of Climate Change.

Nobody has presented this in the form of a hypothesis with the required test to falsify.

CACC is therefore a thing of philosophy, not science.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom