Notices

View Poll Results: Do you believe there are sciences we have not discovered yet?

Voters
14. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    13 92.86%
  • No

    1 7.14%
Results 1 to 18 of 18

Thread: Do you believe there are sciences we have not discovered yet

  1. #1 Do you believe there are sciences we have not discovered yet 
    Forum Isotope (In)Sanity's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Mesa AZ
    Posts
    2,699
    Just wondering if anyone feels we have yet to discover some forms of science or if we have already set all the basics up that will ever exist?


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2 Re: Do you believe there are sciences we have not discovered 
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Maastricht, Netherlands
    Posts
    861
    Quote Originally Posted by (In)Sanity
    Just wondering if anyone feels we have yet to discover some forms of science or if we have already set all the basics up that will ever exist?
    I'm unsure of what you mean by this. 'Psychology' is a stream within filosophy. Filosophy asks the important questions, psychology and other sciences try to give an answer too. Biochemistry, a combo-science between biology and chemistry is not a pure science, but just that, a combo science. Science is not some pure matter.

    Aliens from a different galaxy might explain everything according to filosophy, but have 80 different sciences explaining the degree on which a drop of mercury falls from a turtle on an asteroid. Science is not something definable, thank science ()

    Mr U


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Isotope (In)Sanity's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Mesa AZ
    Posts
    2,699
    Ahh yes I see your point.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Freshman chovy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Los Gatos, CA
    Posts
    33
    I think we have only scratched the surface.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    2112
    Guest
    Sometimes I imagine that aliens are humans from the future who have come back in time to seed us with enough intelligence to make it off the planet. This is just a very fun idea, nothing to take seriously.

    But with all the sci fi movies I think about how there are technologies that we don't have now that we will study when they are invented. I can't say what they would be, maybe hover cars that operate off of air power, something like that. But we will always have new data to learn from.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Freshman tablariddim's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    21
    Science evolves just like everything else does and, as it evolves, it encompasses new disciplines, new ideas and new discoveries. Of course there are sciences that we haven't discovered yet! It would surely be sad and ironic for intelligent people to imagine that we've reached the pinnacle.

    As far as setting up all the basics erm... no.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Sophomore cleft's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    137
    Knowledge is like an onion. Everytime you see a new layer, you open new questions. Usually there are more questions opened than there are answers the newest discovery addresses.

    Our rate of gaining new knowledge has been an increasing upward curve. As an example of this, man has dreamed of flying since he laid eyes on the bird doing so. (Certainly during prehistory times) Took him a couple of thousand years to get it down. His ideas of a death ray came along with the comicbook "Buck Rodgers" days or thereabouts. Many point to the laser as such an answer. Being generous with time frames as an example, call it a century from idea to a working model, no matter how limited, that shows it can be done.

    These curves are strongly influanced by our ablilities to use technology in applications. During the middle ages when monks were the scribes, predominately all knowledge was passed on by word of mouth. Those learned enough to read and have access to the printed word remained the domain of the priviledged few. When the invention of the printing press and the alibility to pass the same book to multiple locations, came access to knowledge of those long gone. This developed a flat in the increasing rate of knowledge expansion, if you will, of new knowledge being slowed down in developement as locating the knowledge was one of the barriers to base the works of others and apply it to new. In otherwords finding the works of others aready done was part of the hinderance.

    Computers helped break this barrier of slowing down the knowledge curve and once again the upward swing of the rate at which knowledge was discovered again took on an upward swing. With the mingling of communications with computers access to knowledge became ever easier. Once again we are slowing down. This time from the shear volume that is there. This slow down in the rate of new knowledge will once again continue until some new technology breaks open the barrier.

    If we knew it all, there would be no new questions that could not be answered with a new observation. We are far from the end of new discoveries and unanswered questions. We are on the path of discovery, no matter how bumpy, it has its' own jumps and slow-downs.
    "Moral indignation is jealousy with a halo."
    - H. G. Wells (1866-1946)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Blah-blah blink. Ripley's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    104
    But science and capitalism and politics and commercialism and warmongering go hand in hand now-a-days, don't they? Don't the non-science parties dictate whose turf can be annexed but not infringed upon? How would tycoons, party-line advocates, the military, drug companies, software companies, etc., or even the narrow-minded but powerful moral majority behave with counter-current, counteractive research in science? Shut them up real fast, no? Unless they can profit directly from such new discoveries.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Sophomore cleft's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    137
    Warmongering has always went hand in hand with tech advances. Look at Leonardo da Vinci, according to the notes he made, he considered parachutes, the tank, the helicopter, and the multiple firing weapon (an early forerunner of the gatlin gun).

    Politics and commercialism have ever been a factor also. In todays world even more so as commercialism gave birth to the megacorporation. In many ways a true hinderance to development unless profit can be seen as an end result. Corporations exist now-a-days to turn a profit even moreso than in the past. They do this by either the R&D or by turf protection. The R&D will be narrowly focused for the most part to those things they are interested in and anything else will be stifled unless there is money in it as the bottom line. The turf protection is the true hinderance. The eliminating of competition and if possible the control of the technology to keep it that way. Politics has aways been part of research. Funding controlling what subjects will or will not be looked into. Even Spain had to bow before politics in the financing of Columbus's expedition, finally coming down to the Queen funding it herself through the gift of personal jewels.

    Only thing I can say is your observation is right on target, ad . hoc.

    Corporations have all the advantages of a man without the benefit of a conscience.
    "Moral indignation is jealousy with a halo."
    - H. G. Wells (1866-1946)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10 Re: Do you believe there are sciences we have not discovered 
    j
    j is offline
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    431
    Quote Originally Posted by HomoUniversalis
    Biochemistry, a combo-science between biology and chemistry is not a pure science, ...

    Mr U
    Huh? Biochemistry is the study of chemistry in living organisms; inorganic chemistry is the study of [how to torture undergraduates] chemistry of non-carbon based compounds; physiology is the study of how elements of a living organism function; inorganic involves physics, physiolgy involves anatomy ...

    You make biochemistry sound like a second-rate science. Or am I missing your point?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    j
    j is offline
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    431
    Yes, I think there are new sciences, and I think physics will lead the way. Not just because physicists know how to think outside of the box, but because the purview of science is measurement and physics can improve the technology of the instruments of measurement.

    What will the new science be? Some element of the so-called 'para-normal'.

    Every person I have ever asked has had some type of "weird" experience; ghosts, clairvoyance, telepathy [I ask people this question out of the blue and very casually; no-one has ever said no].

    I know telepathy occurs; I have read and been read. I do think this will become a field of scientific study once the physcists figure out to measure whatever it is we are doing when we do it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12 Re: Do you believe there are sciences we have not discovered 
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Maastricht, Netherlands
    Posts
    861
    Quote Originally Posted by j
    Quote Originally Posted by HomoUniversalis
    Biochemistry, a combo-science between biology and chemistry is not a pure science, ...

    Mr U
    Huh? Biochemistry is the study of chemistry in living organisms; inorganic chemistry is the study of [how to torture undergraduates] chemistry of non-carbon based compounds; physiology is the study of how elements of a living organism function; inorganic involves physics, physiolgy involves anatomy ...

    You make biochemistry sound like a second-rate science. Or am I missing your point?
    Biochemistry is one of my favorite sciences . I was giving an indication that there are sciences that connect two sciences. The application of chemistry in Biology spawns biochemistry. My reference to a pure science was well, as I look back, a bit puzzling, but I'm sure it served some purpose :P.

    Mr U
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    London, England
    Posts
    405
    Let me tell you about the new science I kinda "thought up".

    It all goes back to computers and artificial intelligence. Roger Penrose argues quite persuasively in The Emperor's New Mind that the fact that a Turing machine can only go as far as conventional mathematics and is therefore restricted by Gödel's Incompleteness theorem. Using a construction of Gödel's you can create a statement that says, in effect, "There is no proof of this statement." The statement is true. But (or rather And) it cannot be proved. As human beings, we can see that the statement is true, but a proof is a logical, mathematical form of "seeing" it that is not actually possible. Therefore no computer can think in the way that a human mind does.

    Now, I read another book, Engines of Logic by Martin Davis. Davis wrote an argument contra Penrose, in which he raised as an example, Deep Thought, the famous chess playing computer that beat Garry Kasparov.

    It struck me that Davis's arguments against Penrose (in which he claimed Penrose was fallacious) were themselves fallacious. What surprised me about this was that Davis is not a johnny-come-lately science writer like Simon Singh, but is in fact a computer programmer of several decades' standing - in fact he studied under John Von Neumann himself!

    The fallacy that Davis made was that the way Deep Thought plays chess is not remotely analogous to the way Garry Kasparov, or even a total woodpusher like myself, plays chess.

    Take a look at a chess board. The White Queen is on d3 and the Black Bishop is on g6. We can see instantly that either piece can take the other. Looking down at the board, we see it in its two dimensions, and can instinctively understand that either piece, with an ability to move along diagonals, is attacking the other, or under attack from the other.

    A computer program, any computer program is totally incapable of doing that. It has to successively read the status for each of 64 squares in terms of the other 63 squares in order to determine whether any square is under attack or not.

    Turing himself proved that all mathematics as we understand it, is performable by a Turing Machine. In the days before actual computers, Turing had devised a system which would be able to perform any function. And the over-riding characteristic of this notional machine, being a tickertape reader/writer, was that it was totally one-dimensional.

    What Turing proved was that all mathematics can be reduced to a single line of step-by-step calculations. What Gödel proved was that all mathematics was incomplete, and what Penrose showed was that our ability to recognise and understand this incompleteness proved that our thought processes are not emulatable by a Turing machine (which includes all Von Neumann architecture computers, ie the vast, vast majority of them, even if running in parallel).

    So by contemplating that, I recognised that there must be some other science - something our brains do that "we" cannot do. And we can call it Multidimensional-simultaneous logic. This is multidimensional mathematics, but not in the traditional sense of our ability to handle multidimensional matrices or do regular mathematics in 3 dimensional space, or string theory calculations in 11 dimensional space. All such calculations are still broken down to a single dimension, a single line of successive steps. When we look at that chessboard diagonal, we are doing something outside all conventional mathematics. We see the second dimension simultaneously with the first, and can automatically see the consequences of both together, something Mathematics just cannot do.

    I await a breakthrough in actually creating this mathematical world. But it is beyond me!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Freshman tablariddim's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    21
    I'm no mathematician nor a scientist nor even remotely intelligent, but I 'understood' what you were saying and I think that the new science you are talking about is this intagible ability to, 'understand'.

    You say that we look at the chess board and immediately we can know that yada yada, kind of instinctively, but you know as well as I do that it's not really as simple as that. Our brains must be doing multiple calculations at the speed of light for us to be able to recognise the consequences of moving those pieces on the board in such a quick and natural way. It's just that those calculations are happening in the sub-conscious, but they are still based on experience (or programming).

    Same thing happens in so many situations; you glimpse a scenario and immediately you can visualise the outcome; or, eg you go to buy tomatos and there are so many things that you have to judge before you make that purchase; the colour, the size, the smell, the freshness, the firmness, the potential taste, the perfection, the price, the quantity you need; all these equations are done subconsciously with seemingly hardly any thought process, but of course you're probably putting more thought into that simple little scenario than Deep Blue probably could.

    I just realised that I've paraphrased what you said; so what's my point? None really, just that, well, I know what you mean.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15 Re: Do you believe there are sciences we have not discovered 
    j
    j is offline
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    431
    Quote Originally Posted by HomoUniversalis
    Quote Originally Posted by j
    You make biochemistry sound like a second-rate science. Or am I missing your point?
    I was giving an indication that there are sciences that connect two sciences. ...
    Mr U
    Oh; well, yes, of course.

    So you were saying that there will be no "new sciences" because the division of knowledge and inquiry into separate fields, such as biology and chemistry, is a convenient fiction?

    And all new endevours will probably be treated as a sub-genre of the existing discipline from which they arise?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Masters Degree invert_nexus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    638
    Hee hee.
    I'm the one who voted no.
    For the simple reason that I don't think sciences are so much 'discovered' as 'created'.
    It's all in interpretation. Science doesn't exist without man (or some other sentient being) there to see it. It's not something to be discovered laying on the ground around a corner like a used condom... But rather it's something that's always been there, right in your face, but just not seen because the eyes aren't there yet.

    In other words, science is a way of interpreting the world. A means of looking at the world. It's not something that exists in the world without the mind that looks and interprets.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    London, England
    Posts
    405
    Quote Originally Posted by tablariddim
    I'm no mathematician nor a scientist nor even remotely intelligent, but I 'understood' what you were saying and I think that the new science you are talking about is this intagible ability to, 'understand'.

    You say that we look at the chess board and immediately we can know that yada yada, kind of instinctively, but you know as well as I do that it's not really as simple as that. Our brains must be doing multiple calculations at the speed of light for us to be able to recognise the consequences of moving those pieces on the board in such a quick and natural way. It's just that those calculations are happening in the sub-conscious, but they are still based on experience (or programming).

    Same thing happens in so many situations; you glimpse a scenario and immediately you can visualise the outcome; or, eg you go to buy tomatos and there are so many things that you have to judge before you make that purchase; the colour, the size, the smell, the freshness, the firmness, the potential taste, the perfection, the price, the quantity you need; all these equations are done subconsciously with seemingly hardly any thought process, but of course you're probably putting more thought into that simple little scenario than Deep Blue probably could.

    I just realised that I've paraphrased what you said; so what's my point? None really, just that, well, I know what you mean.
    Well, you didn't entirely paraphrase what I said. But what I meant was not that there were no calculations, but that those calculations can not be emulated by a Turing machine. What we are experiencing is not a multidimensional simulation of a monodimensional series of calculations, the calculations themselves are multidimensional and simultaneous.

    Turing proved that a Turing machine is capable of undertaking any operation or series of operations, including proofs, that form a part of conventional mathematics. I believe that since a multidimensional mathematical operation cannot be performed on a turing Machine, this forms the proof (intellectual proof, not rigorous mathematical proof, of course) that our thought processes involve something other than conventional mathematics.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    j
    j is offline
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    431
    Quote Originally Posted by Silas
    ... the calculations themselves are multidimensional and simultaneous...
    our thought processes involve something other than conventional mathematics.
    I don't know if this is very interesting or boringly self-evident; I'm interested.

    The example you used involves a single stimulus, with many possible, no, probable responses. How about a situation with with multiple stimuli and very few probable responses to each?

    Or is that a classical series of simultaneous monodimensional calculations?
    [I think such a situation would be more common in real life; like talking on the phone while you're washing dishes, and interrupting yourself to tell your kid where she left her jacket, and still remembering later where you put the can-opener.]
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •