In physics, why do we come up with a theory that is unable to explain what is actually going in a phenomenon? Just we are creating a theory which explains the results and satisfies the data, does not mean that it will not have mistakes. Why cant we make a theory which is absolute? in other words, why dont we try to understand god's ways of making this world?
Asked
Active
Viewed 192 times
-3
-
2Because we cannot test all possibilities and all variations to ensure that we're not missing everything. – Kyle Kanos Sep 27 '15 at 18:05
-
As to the last sentence, there are StackExchange sites for several major religions available. It doesn't however, seem to relate to physics. – paisanco Sep 27 '15 at 18:46
-
God might be related to science – Syed Jaffri Sep 27 '15 at 18:48
-
Well maybe but the discussion of how would depend on whatever concept of a deity one has, and would be more appropriate on a site for whatever particular religion you are most interested in. – paisanco Sep 27 '15 at 18:49
-
by god's ways, i mean god might be making this universe in a particular fashion. I just want to know that fashion. – Syed Jaffri Sep 27 '15 at 18:56
-
2Again, Physics.SE exists to answer questions about physics. How that physics relates to any religion is a topic for discussion within that religion. Most major religions have several schools of thought internally on that question. It's really not on-topic here though. – paisanco Sep 27 '15 at 19:01
2 Answers
0
"In physics, why do we come up with a theory that is unable to explain what is actually going in a phenomenon?"
It's unclear whether you're talking about one specific theory, or all of them? What do you mean by a "theory"? I'm actually struggling to think of a "theory" which doesn't explain what is "actually going on in a phenomenon".
"Just we are creating a theory which explains the results and satisfies the data"
That's just not true. Physics is actually often trying to find evidence to falsify what we expect to be true, as it often opens new avenues of possibilities for exotic physics!
"Why cant we make a theory which is absolute?"
I can't make head nor tail of this one. What is an absolute theory?
I suspect that in this whole question you might be angling at the idea that it's unsatisfactory that there is uncertainty in physics, on the quantum scale. What you should read up on is "local realism" which Einstein was a proponent of. He famously quoted that "god does not play dice with the universe". I won't go any further. Just read up on locality.
Matt
- 1,758
0
There is a big problem with your assumption that there exists a God and that we should try to understand "God's ways of making this world". To see this, consider creating a huge supercomputer capable of simulating a World in which intelligent creatures lives. Then you are the de-facto "God" of this virtual world. Now, how would the intelligent creatures living in this virtual world ever understand "your ways of making the virtual world"? They may observe some details about their effective laws of physics, but that won't ever get them to a complete understanding as you put in some ad hoc features in their world, as that would require them to also extract the details of how your brain works.
Therefore, the only hope for us to get a complete understanding of the laws of physics is if the God hypothesis is false.
Count Iblis
- 10,114
-
5
-
@KyleKanos One may always postulate a God that fills the gaps, but that's not the sort of God described in the Bible. If you consider how science has been able to make progress since we started to adhere to the scientific method, you have to acknowledge that the Bible got the improper benefit of the doubt at every stage. E.g. the default assumption was that the Earth was young right until one could prove that it wasn't. If there were anything true about the existence of the Biblical God, then the evidence would already have been found, but science would also have ended right there. – Count Iblis Sep 28 '15 at 16:55
-
E.g. we would have figured out that the Earth is really 5000 years old, the Earth was then e.g. created ab initio with a hot core. So, the way the Earth came to existence is then no longer a question of Geology, it becomes theology because you would have to figure out why God decided to design the Earth that way. Perhaps through prayer you could get an answer from God, but such methods are not compatible with science, the truth then derives from authority, i.e. I have to accept that what you are saying is indeed God's word. – Count Iblis Sep 28 '15 at 17:00
-
That's quite the non-seuqitor (mostly false and uninformed, but whatever). Your posts' argument is that the "God hypothesis is false" because we can't get a complete understanding of God. Think of this same argument applied elsewhere: We can't get a complete understanding of black holes, so the black hole hypothesis must be false. The conclusion does not follow from the argument. – Kyle Kanos Sep 28 '15 at 17:14
-
@KyleKanos That's not what I'm saying. My argument is that assuming that it is true leads to pathological science, but, of course, if the World really works that way, then we would have to live with that. It's similar to finding out that the TOE is non-renormalizable quantum gravity. – Count Iblis Sep 28 '15 at 17:20
-
It may not be what you meant, but it most certainly is what your wrote. Note also that the counter argument you're implying (science will prove all in the future) is also a fallacy (argument to the future), so it holds as much water as believing in the God of the gaps (which, as far as I'm aware, no major Christian religion actually ascribes to). – Kyle Kanos Sep 28 '15 at 17:42