Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc,comp.ai.philosophy,talk.religion.newage,alt.atheism,alt.pagan,alt.consciousness
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news2.harvard.edu!news2.near.net!news.mathworks.com!hookup!swrinde!gatech!psuvax1!news.ecn.bgu.edu!siemens!princeton!arcline.remote.princeton.edu!user
From: arcline@phoenix.princeton.edu (Austin Cline)
Subject: Re: Reality & Purpose
Message-ID: <arcline-0512942004260001@arcline.remote.princeton.edu>
Originator: news@hedgehog.Princeton.EDU
Sender: news@Princeton.EDU (USENET News System)
Nntp-Posting-Host: arcline.remote.princeton.edu
Organization: Princeton University
References: <3bt42q$f70@ixnews1.ix.netcom.com> <sbrown.786571475@symcom> <3bu0u7$po1@ixnews1.ix.netcom.com> <arcline-0512940000200001@arcline.remote.princeton.edu> <Harmon.1573.000A8452@psyvax.psy.utexas.edu> <3bvkgg$akp@news1.cle.ab.com>
Date: Tue, 6 Dec 1994 01:04:26 GMT
Lines: 41

In article <3bvkgg$akp@news1.cle.ab.com>, gxkambic@csslc10.cle.ab.com
(george kambic) wrote:

> In article <Harmon.1573.000A8452@psyvax.psy.utexas.edu>,
Harmon@psyvax.psy.utexas.edu (Michael G. Harmon) writes:
> |> In article <arcline-0512940000200001@arcline.remote.princeton.edu>
arcline@phoenix.princeton.edu (Austin Cline) writes:
> |> ? For science, the
> |> >ability to measure, particularly with mathematics, means to know. So, no
> |> >measurement, no knowledge. As far as science is concerned, there is
> |> >nothing measurable either outside of or before the universe because of
> |> >this lack of space and time. Even if there is/was something there, it is
> |> >unmeasurable and, hence, beyond knowledge. Science really doesn't care
> |> >about anything unprovable, unknowable and, as far as can be seen,
> |> >irrelevant to what is going on.
  
> |> >Of course, there is always the possibility for some sort of mystical or
> |> >intuitive knowledge about what is outside of/was before the universe. Just
> |> >because it isn't science doesn't make it absolutely invalid. Is this what
> |> >you were talking about? Or there is the possibility of a future science
> |> >that *can* deal with these things. Since, however, that lies so far beyond
> |> >the present basis for science, it is difficult to conceive of such a
> |> >system as being 'science' and not something else. 

> |> It will be something else, I bet.  
> 
> What is the *something else*?

Well, I said 'something else' with one eye on the historical development
of science and knowledge. Take, for example, Aristotlean Physics and
Modern Physics. There are some similarities but many differences, despite
both being called 'Physics'. I'd say that Modern Physics is 'something
else', due to the many changes in our understandings on the 'way things
work', our methodologies, and our 'first premises' - the assumptions from
which we work. I see no reason to assume that such things will not change
further over the next millenia or so. What is done may still be called
'science', but may be unreconciable with our present notion of what
'science' is. What that 'something else' will be is as unimaginable to us
as Modern Physics probably would have been to Aristotle.

Well, that's what I was thinking at the time.
