Can science explain everything?

Unfortunately there are a lot of the latter who still managed to wrangle themselves a Ph.D.
The really sad thing is that the cargo cultists are straight up ruining science. Not only are they parroting dumb shit without thinking critically, they're also tainting the public opinion of the scientific method, as if the scientific community being largely full of charalatans meant that the very idea of trying to understand the world around you is gay and wrong.
 
Last edited:
I believe science can explain everything in the universe (including miracles), however, there's definitely limitations to our knowledge of it. Given that there's the Three Laws that everything is supposed to follow and yet we're finding discoveries that appear to deny or subvert those Laws, it would suggest there's more Laws than just the three, or there's more nuance to those Laws we haven't yet discovered, or more likely we just can't comprehend the fulness of those Laws. Then there's stuff like quantum physics and the idea of multiple planes of existence (or dimensions), and then there's strange biology we keep discovering on Earth (the oceans are rife with this level of bizarre) and the idea that extraterrestial forces may have presence here or was vital to the creation of life (water may not have originated here, for instance), and I think that's neat and helps keep that itch of wanting to know more.

Does it add any points to my salvation, though? Doubt it, but I don't see why God would create a vast universe and not expect us to explore and study it on our journey. I just wanna go exploring and seeing this for myself in the next world since I don't have such luxuries in this existence.
 
Lack of adequate sexy man pheromones.
The only way to get more sexy man pheromones is to interact with hot women and get their women pheromone on the male persons; at which point a biotransformation is induced creating more sexy man pheromones. It is elementary Watson.
 
I’m actually not sure about that. I’m going back to my question about consciousness here. What is consciousness? How does it a raise or happen? We’ve been asking this for millennia, and nobody can even really decide on a definition for what consciousness actually IS, never mind say how it happens.
There are explanations, but they aren't very satisfying to most people. The best one is more or less that consciousness is the consequence of the brain trying to understand itself while avoiding the obvious infinite regress of actually understanding itself fully. "Trying" in the colloquial sense, evolution obviously has no plans.
 
Are there things it can’t explain, and if so why?
(I spent an hour and 15 minutes of my morning enjoying this thread.)

The older I get the less I feel the need for "science" to explain everything, also the last few years has greatly expanded my mistrust of people who claim to have figured anything out. I'm looking for a good explanation that is fulfilling, and science fails at explaining a lot. (placebo effect, immune systems etc.) It seems like hubris to pretend to know how the universe will end, when we can't really leave this exceptionally tiny dot that we inhabit. They tell me it's just heat death and entropy, but lets be honest that explanation sucks, it's depressing, and defeatist. Same with the "we're just bags of meat!" "chemical automatons!", but then you figure out there might be a lot of fraud going on in the "scientific community" (im looking at you 'I figured out what cause alzheimers' dude, great photoshop skills though). Why should science explain everything? I mean clearly we still have a need for some kind of creator? Or just something more. I crave an answer that satisfies this "more" component. I'm not really sure what it is, but I feel like I'd know it when I hear it.

The tech billionaires are so angry God isn't speaking to them they are trying to build their own version, people are searching for this more that it's sent Nvidia's stock price into the moon. We are dying for an explanation of everything, it doesn't appear to me that anything else living here is searching for this, just humans. Kind of odd when you think about it.

I find it helps in bridging the gap between all the aforementioned concepts to try for a scale or spectrum with one end labeled "service to self", and the other labeled "service to others". Is this scientific concept serving humanity as a whole, or is it a ploy to get ahead personally in some fashion.
This helps me explain my distrust for "the church" but not my complete shunning of religious teachings.
 
Some things should remain a mystery. Science can explain most things, but doesn't necessarily need to explain ALL things. If everything was explained, then what would be the entire point of existence?
 
Same with the "we're just bags of meat!" "chemical automatons!" [...] Why should science explain everything? I mean clearly we still have a need for some kind of creator? Or just something more. I crave an answer that satisfies this "more" component. I'm not really sure what it is, but I feel like I'd know it when I hear it.
Not quite what you asked, but the question "What is life?" has puzzled many a bright mind throughout the history of our species, including the great physicist Schrodinger, who 80 years ago published a book of the same name. I quote from the book (actually from Wikipedia because I'm a faggot and don't have the book):
Living matter, while not eluding the "laws of physics" as established up to date, is likely to involve "other laws of physics" hitherto unknown, which however, once they have been revealed, will form just as integral a part of science as the former.
To this day, conventionally accepted science has not answered the above posed question. Life is generally defined by the properties living beings exhibit, such as metabolism, growth and reproduction (I'm so sorry, Null), but it is not defined at the molecular level; what is the smallest ensemble of atoms and molecules which comprises the basic unit of life? Certainly not the entire cell, as life exists on a much smaller scale, but neither can we call a single polypeptide chain or a polymer of nucleic acids alive as these macromolecules, while instrumental to the function of the cell, aren't enough by themselves to account for its characteristic functions.

Well, I believe my boy right here has found the answer.
Gilbert-Ning-Ling-Image-courtesy-of-the-Ling-Family-Collection.png
Unfortunately, since his theory of the physical basis of life, the Association-Induction hypothesis, is completely at odds with the membrane-pump theory of cell physiology, a theory so firmly established and widely accepted that even the biggest schizoposters don't think about questioning it, he and his research remain shrouded in obscurity. I will refrain from sperging about his work here because it would be impossible to do it justice without writing an Iliad-length novel, but I will say this: if you ever have the misfortune of finding yourself or your loved one inside an MRI machine, this is the man to thank for the theoretical basis upon which this miraculous and life-saving diagnostic instrument is built.
 
Last edited:
"Trying" in the colloquial sense, evolution obviously has no plans.
That’s a fun one.

How do birds?

The process is so slow that it had to be a disadvantage at certain points to redirect metabolic resources towards growing useless feathers, or to lose the functionality of limbs that would eventually become wings.
 
I think the best distillation of the issue is "Why does anything at all exist? Why is there something, rather than nothing?".

The scientific method and understanding are based on the causal link between cause and effect; effects must be preceded by causes. But if you keep drilling down the causal chain, you run into a problem: either there must be a first cause which is not preceded, or you have to create some sort of infinite loop, but the latter isn't actually different than the former, since you have to ask "why does the infinite loop exist" and you can't avoid arriving at "it just does, okay?" sooner or later.

And clearly something does exist. I have subjective experiences, or maybe I'm a figment of your imagination and you have subjective experiences, so at least one of us can truly verify that there isn't just nothingness. Even if we're all a simulation, that isn't nothingness. So we're left with the conclusion that an uncaused cause must exist, because we know that something exists.

Congratulations! You have arrived at the point where something outside of scientific understanding, and completely contrary to our understanding of how the material universe works, is a necessary element to scientifically explain the one thing that is beyond argument: "something exists." Remind me why the notion of another existence outside the observed rules of the universe is completely absurd and unthinkable, again?
 
The process is so slow that it had to be a disadvantage at certain points to redirect metabolic resources towards growing useless feathers, or to lose the functionality of limbs that would eventually become wings.
Mutations are absolutely a disadvantage most of the time. Evolution works by selecting out mutations that cause too much disadvantage for the animal to reproduce.
 
Mutations are absolutely a disadvantage most of the time. Evolution works by selecting out mutations that cause too much disadvantage for the animal to reproduce.
Ok.
What do you suppose killed off all the pre-pterodactyls whose forepaws did not lose their ability to grip things?
 
Not quite what you asked, but the question "What is life?"
No, but I left my question somewhat ambiguous because it could consist of different questions, "what is life?" is a great question that hasn't exactly been answered to my knowledge.
I will refrain from sperging about his work here because it would be impossible to do it justice without writing an Iliad-length novel
You were't kidding, I remember learning a lot about membrane pump ages ago.

He just died recently.
1708982804142.png

He was just shy of 100. "Gilbert Ning Ling 凌寧 (December 26, 1919 – November 10, 2019) was a Chinese-born American cell physiologist, biochemist and scientific investigator."
 
Ok.
What do you suppose killed off all the pre-pterodactyls whose forepaws did not lose their ability to grip things?
I'm not sure what you mean exactly, but evolution by natural selection is not able to globally optimize. Presumably their fitness was worse, but fitness being worse does not need a clearly legible reason to exist.
 
Doubt it, considering #Science can't even come up with its own creation myth.

Semites: In the beginning there was darkness, and then God created light.
Science: In the beginning there was darkness, and then Bang created light.
Yep! And the Big Bang theory was actually synthesized by a Catholic priest. It doesn't explain the universe without the hand of God either.
 
Would you mind linking to that?
I'll describe one of the more major ones since I can't find my initial posts on some of it. I'll also detail minor oddities I experienced. Note: Not all of them but I'd be here awhile talking about people that either caused abnormal events or seemed to be able to do abnormal things or extreme coincidental outcomes.

One guy who I met through my work with veterans who tragically passed, had the uncanny ability to be able to see mental images and details of it or see people's mental imagery directly. He claimed he could only do it sometimes, and although my initial impression was that he did it via "cold reading" or reading body language, the problem is the first time he saw one of my mental images (which I'll detail in a second) he did it over a call-app (just call: as in you can only hear voices, like XBL)

In regards to the mental image, it started when a friend of mine was talking about nightmares he had recently and one of mine sprang to my mental imagery: it was based on a nightmare I had where I was in front of a white painted banister with a dark brown finish overlooking a door with a window seal next to it, Out the window I could see trees and forestry when a weird looking guy with a purple jacket and red pants walks up to the window doing some weird hand gestures when his face begins to change into an inhuman snarl eyes glaring directly at me as he begins to screech at me. I had that mental image in my mind as my friend was having a discussion about recent nightmares when the man I met through veterans interrupted my friend for a second and spoke to me he called my name and merely said "That vision of that guy in front of the window is really unnerving" I was confused as were the rest in the party because I hadn't told anyone of my recent nightmare. My friend who was the first to bring up the nightmares what he was talking about when the guy brings it back to how he can see "A weird looking guy with a purple coat and red suspenders pushing his face against a window looking in" at me.

He also did it a few other times when we hung out, once or twice IRL but most of the other times it happened over the app. Again in person I could believe maybe he could "cold read" someone at a heightened state, but over a non-visible connection? The only other question I have is how he knew it was my mental image and didn't just confuse it for someone elses or his own independent mental imagery?

He saw mental imagery of other people from jokes being told, some without even speaking on the subject such as my nightmare, and other people we knew in various situations he saw their specific mental imagery.

----

Back when I was studying the belief in psychic energy I tested some old theories of how one might be able to prove mind-link, mind reading, etc. I did a few random tests here and there in real life face to face with people who weren't aware I was doing the test in regards to them.


One day I was sitting in a black tinted (fully dark) truck when I see a lady sitting on a bench at McDonald's. So one of my experiments was to test "thinking at someone" with negative ideas and feelings. For instance: Thinking hard that the person is ugly. So I began focusing them thinking directly of them in negative ways as mentioned. The lady gets off the bench not long after the experiment began and walks over to the truck walks past the front seat, and stares into the window directly in to my eyes even though she can't see through it directly at me. She stands there for about a minute and then turns and walks off.

---

During this same testing phase I went to a mall nearby and tried similar tactic again doing the same process thinking things like "You're ugly" "Your clothing makes you look poor/ugly" etc. I'm walking near the book store after having no success when I begin walking to the side of a guy, right as I focus him I walk a few more steps when he turns angrily and looks at me and says "What'd you just say to me?" I at first try to reassure the guy I have not said anything to him, when he persists that he heard me talking shit about him. I persist in my denial hoping I have not accidentally said my thoughts out loud I turn to another stranger near and ask him if he heard me say anything he says he didn't hear me say anything outside of defend myself. The initial guy did not believe it and unequivocally tells me to get lost in a not so friendly manner.



Assuming this to be true, why wouldn't you be able to rationally explain this?

You are conflating a particle cultist that thinks reality is a bunch of tiny steel marbles and everything is just an expression of their travel towards entropy, with a person practicing science who is trying to rationally explain phenomena observed in nature.

There is no reason to think you could not find a rational explanation for many phenomena far removed from the particle marble model.
Although a normal "rational explanation" could suffice to answer that doesn't mean it is. A false positive or the opposite, but you are correct and it kind of goes along with my concept something is only super natural until it is explained by observation. Even something "unnatural" may become natural later on if some implication of how such a mechanic/etc. works becomes defined or obvious to observer's in the first place. Assuming such an event/concept/etc. is explainable in the first place.

However, some things/events I can not explain as simple hallucination, insanity or what have you with multiple witnesses just an example experiencing two sundays in a row with another person before. Assuming it is true and not made up how would one explain such an event assuming not insanity/delusion/drugs and in a "natural" way?
 
  • Like
Reactions: The Tall Man
I'm not sure what you mean exactly, but evolution by natural selection is not able to globally optimize. Presumably their fitness was worse, but fitness being worse does not need a clearly legible reason to exist.
I think the axioms you’re quoting at me are true, but they also sidestep the issue that I’m getting at, which is that some evolutionary paths have been counter intuitive, improbable, circuitous.. pick your own word.

Idk. I think the future already happened. There’s no reason to believe it functions fundamentally differently from the past,
and the ability to form predictions from information implies a kind of continuity, doesn’t it? Predictions ought not work very well if the future is randomized, but I think you can show an increase in the accuracy of prediction from an increase in accurate information.

From a deterministic perspective like that, there ISNT a problem with the evolution of birds that requires complicated explanations. Bird always happened, are always happening, will always happen.
 
  • Thunk-Provoking
Reactions: Vecr
Another thing I've come to distrust is what seems like the "philosophy" of science.
The philosophy of science course I had to take at school really kind of changed everything. Up until that point we'd been learning technical stuff. Proper sampling methods, all the math stuff, how to write properly, all the stuff to actually do science work. This course was different. We read a lot of old papers and different historical incarnations of the scientific method and discussed a lot of stuff about the basic foundations of science and the big debate about whether falsification was actually the best way to conduct science. That part was actually pretty interesting and sort of solidified exactly why we use the scientific method in its current form and why it is, at least so far, the best method for understanding things through observation.

The other part of the course though was a bunch of weird Soros tier shit about the general population being too retarded to look after themselves and how scientists needed to make decisions for the poor misguided chattel and conspiracy theorist tier population control and reduction shit. Like they actually said that it would be better if the majority of the population became gay or didn't reproduce and talked about the need to reduce the global population to 1 billion or less. This was pre-mass encouraged faggotry, pre-clown world, pre The Science™.
 
Can science explain everything?
The answer is almost certainly NO, for the simple reason that Science ultimately relies on human perception -- even if immensely augmented by technology -- and reason. There is simply no a priori reason that all knowledge is accessible to human perception and reason. Other posters have brought up how the human brain is unable to process the vast amounts of information that is needed for explanation, even in phenomena that is theoretically accessible to perception and reasoning.

There is also the worry that the human brain might have been evolutionarily developed in such a way that it organizes the world in such categories in ways that enhanced the survival of our ancestors, yet these categories might not reflect how the world "really" is. That's perhaps why the notion of Time is so hard to grapple with both scientifically and philosophically. Does time really "flow"? Physics seems to say No: Time is just one trajectory that a point in space traverses in a 4-dimenional reality, and that there can be different trajectories. But human perception tells us that there is one inevitable trajectory in time. How can we even decide which picture, or neither, is correct?

Are there things it can’t explain, and if so why?
The flip side of the above argument is: granted that there almost certainly exists truths beyond human perception and reason, how can we know what these are, and how can we verify them. I don't have an answer that will satisfy most people.
 
Can Science explain how Gloria Ramierz had so much radiation on her before she died? Its been 30 years now. Still no answers....
 
Back