Okay, this is my "try of an answer". <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/winkwink.gif" alt="" />
The sad thing is, that I have things in my memory which I once have written - but cannot anymore explain them precisely. That's why some of my comments will always remain somewhat unclear.
Okay, here I go :
- I've once read in an scientific magazine ( I think it was the "New Scientist") around the turn of the millennium that - according to a information science theory - it has been observed that "Mother Nature" - I mean the Universe it self, seriously - gives only as much information free as it must give - because tests, and theories are "discovering" them.
What sounds quite weird meansin the result that we aren't really "discovering" scientific facts, but rather that the Universe is giving them away ... because it must do so, because - let me try to put it into a picture - the Universe has been threatened by scientists to give this "information" (scientific facts) away.
The article I read in the library of the University of Cologne back then was so interesting, that I got really excited ! Because it sounded as if there was a mathematical theory of some "information science" that was actually expressing or even proving (although I doubt that there can be real prov for that) that the Universe actually acts like that. We get only bits of information because we are begging for them, or because we are threatening or pushing the Universe (like it was some godly person) by showing "scientific facts", acting like "this is what we have found; now you must admit that we are right and give this information to us !" - that was the picture that I had in my mind when I read this text.
I lost track of this article, it's been a long time ago already, so I cannot say whether I#ve mixed things in my head or whether I've understood it correctly at all.
But your texts also points to that :
theory is no more an abstraction of experiments but a kind of "generator/creator of facts" (for some reasons the question to know if the fact is "made" or "rediscovers" is maybe circular, and anyway more a philosophical than a physical question. Classical answer since quantic mechanic is it is "made" and "rediscovers" but i won't really comment that).
That is - in a nutshell - exactly what I've tried to say above. We don't really"discover. It's already ther, and "discovery" is an illusion - Mother Nature (the Universe) only gives it to us, because we've "found" it. If we hadn't "found" it, it wouldn't be "true".
- Besides, there are *very* few Scientists who are ral Philosophers ... where does this hiatus come from ? Because Sciences are divided into "Natural Sciences" and the other Sciences, we call in German "Geisteswissenshaften" (a possible translation would be "Sciences of the Spirit/Mind"). (Geisteswissenschaften are here in Germany for example Literature, Languages, Philosophy, Archaeology, etc. , interestingly Geography is here also counted to that, in stark contrast to Geology).
As a result, there is no real "Ganzheitlichkeit" ("Wholeness") of
all sciences. You could either be a Chemist or an Archaeologist, but not both at the same time - that's how it goes as a principle. Geography is one of the few sciences that are "Whole", including parts of "natural science" and "mind science" at the same time.
Considering this Hiatus, I'm not surprised that Philosophy lacks the tools and mind-concepts / theories that are developed in extreme physics (quantum physics, for example).
- The most interesting and comprehensive set of theories I've come across is something very special. You won't believe it.
theory is no more an abstraction of experiments but a kind of "generator/creator of facts"
There even is a set of theories that describes what's in exactly this quotation : It's the set of underlying concepts of Huna.
According to Huna, the belief-system of a person
creates what this person experiences. Sounds weird, huh ?
Well, it's even worse <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/winkwink.gif" alt="" /> : This does not only mean that the belief-system creates what the person experiences from a personal point of view, but also
from an objective point of view. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/winkwink.gif" alt="" />
I mean the folowing : If I believe that "everyone hates me", not only will I experience it that way from my subjective point of view, but also - according to that principle - people will begin to act towards you in that way. If I believe " I have no good uck", things will happen to actually "prove" that belief (please not that I've put "prove" into quotation marks). If I believ "I'm successful", thingswill just turn out that way.
Put into science that means that
if I put somthing into a theory, it is so. If I formulate a theory about quantum physics, my belief-system will incluence the "truth" in a way so that things seem to "prove" my theory.
I've heard of several esoterical "systems" where people actully believe that thoughts can influence things. Like I've described above. I'm not really surprised.
theory is no more an abstraction of experiments but a kind of "generator/creator of facts"
That fits very well on what I've said above. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/winkwink.gif" alt="" />
Back to topic :
Imho questions for understanding the relationship between the three are:
1) are these fields handling the same objects?
2) may these fields coexists "peacefully"?
3) are we in a time where a kind of "belief" in one of these fields (actually science) excludes both others?
4) has the relationship which is uniting/differing these fields has changed with history?
1. No. Well, yes, but not in the same categories.
2. In the "western" cultures, I'd say "no".
3. As in 2. "Western" cultures are often very materialistic, logical, rational oriented, and therefore Science excludes Religion and Philosophy, except in extreme cases (quantum physics, for example, where the borders tend to disappear).
4. In "western" culture I'd clearly say "yes", beginning with the time I know as the "Renaissance" at the end of the "Middle Ages". At that time, people tried to explain everything using Logic and the Ratio and material sciences. This has let to a vast overall improvement, but also created a Hiatus between the above mentiones three fields. One of the very few examples is Geography, and in the field of Archaeology people now tend to try to fit at least two of the fields together again. Modern excavations are normally performed by Geographics and Scientists and Arcaeologists at the same time ( Natural Sciences and "Geisteswissenschaften").
That's why I was interested in the topic about "spiritual damage" if there are still cultures in the world which don't have this hiatus (division) between Religion, Philosophy and Science. I don't know any, but have the feeling (from what I've heard) that the division between these three might be smaller in aian cultures.
